「主體性」是台灣當代政治實踐的關鍵詞，這個概念在1990年代跨越學科領域且在民間流行起來，堪稱重要的社會與政治現象。雖然是從subjectivity翻譯而來，subjectivity在西方是關於構成性的哲學問題的概念，本身並沒有如同「主體性」一詞在台灣那樣被人們當成所欲求的政治價值。本文的目的有二，一是提出探討「何謂主體性？」的研究方法。本文的「方法論」是印度後殖民女性主義學者寧蒂珠（Tejaswini Niranjana）所提出的「在亞洲『之間』的方法論」（Inter-Asia Methodology）。依照此方法論中「對概念『使勁』」（“pressing” the concept）的原則，發展適用於台灣的後殖民研究方法─將「譯者之言」視為「他者」，並且將翻譯的意義落差視為概念政治化之所在─我稱之為「控白概念」研究法。第二，運用「控白概念」研究方法，分析1990年代的主體性現象。我以1992年至1996年間《中外文學》一系列關於台灣與主體性的辯論為分析的對象，示範「主體性／subjectivity」如何在這個具權威性的學術場域中的運作。本文以翻譯的政治與菁英的交鋒作為切入點來回答「何謂主體性？」的問題，將主體性的概念視為菁英譯者階級的發明，意義混淆不明並非「民間」「誤用」的結果，而是與譯者的慾望有關。

Zhu-ti-xing is a fundamental political concept in contemporary Taiwan. The concept has become popular since the 1990s, to the extent that it can be seen as a significant social and political phenomenon. Zhu-ti-xing is the Chinese translation of the concept of subjectivity. However, as a philosophical concept for questioning the constitution of the subject, the concept of subjectivity in the West does not function as a desirable political value as Zhuti- xing does in Taiwan. The aims of this paper are as follows: Firstly, it aims at developing a research method to work on the question “what is Zhu-ti-xing?” I follow the so-called “Inter-Asia methodology” brought forth by Indian postcolonial feminist scholar Tejaswini Niranjana, particularly her idea of “‘pressing’ the concept,” and develop a research method called “kong-bai concept.” The method of “kong-bai concept” is a postcolonial research method that treats the language of the translator as “the Other” and sees the unbridgeable gap between the translation and the translated to be the locus where the concept is politicalized. Second, I use the method of “kong-bai concept” to analyze the debates on Taiwan and Zhu-ti-xing from 1992 to 1996 in the leading literary and cultural studies journal Chung-Wai Literary Monthly. Through analyzing the debates, I demonstrate the function of the kong-bai concept of “Zhu-ti-xing/subjectivity.” This paper argues that Zhu-ti-xing/ subjectivity is formed in the antagonism among the elite-translators. The equivocity of its meaning is not due to the misappropriation of common people but rather the desire of the elites.