重塑歷史：情治與軍法體系成員的威權統治記憶
作者
中文摘要
當前威權統治歷史研究多從外部瞭解軍法官、特務、政工的運作與影響，鮮少觸及其內在世界。本文透過初步資料整理，分析橫跨幾個世代的體制端成員，在民主化後如何記憶二二八與白色恐怖，又如
何看待舊秩序的評價翻轉，期為台灣相關加害者研究提供經驗基礎。
我以情治機關負責國內安全事務者及軍法體系成員為主，對照體系外圍成員，將他們的記憶內容區分為時代背景、組織運作及個人責任三個層次討論。結果發現，記憶內容大致穩定，多以敵我二分維護體制正當性，堅持預防性治理邏輯。面對究責議題，往往高度防衛，或援引依法行政框架，或訴諸個人德行、表達委屈，傾向避談體制造成的傷害，遑論思考自身作為與責任。
然而我們仍能從解嚴迄今的敘事變化，辨認出社會價值變遷的影響；也能在制度位置外圍者，或經歷世界觀挑戰者身上，看到有限度的反思。從著重與避談之間，我們得以觀察主流記憶如何成為背景與
資源，形塑不同群體協商、重組與調適記憶及認同的軌跡。
英文摘要
Current studies of authoritarian rule in Taiwan have largely examined the functions and impacts of military judges, intelligence agents, and political warfare personnel from an external perspective, while rarely addressing their inner worlds. Through a preliminary examination of available materials, this article analyzes how generations of members of the authoritarian apparatus have remembered the February 28 Incident and the White Terror after democratization, and how they have responded to changing evaluations of the old order, thereby providing an empirical basis for further perpetrator studies in Taiwan.
Focusing on domestic intelligence personnel and members of the military judicial system, with peripheral members of the apparatus included for comparison, the article examines their memories across three dimensions: historical context, institutional operations, and personal responsibility. Their memories remain broadly stable, largely legitimizing authoritarian rule through friend-enemy distinctions and a logic of preventive governance. When confronted with questions of accountability, they tend to respond defensively, invoking the claim that they were “acting in accordance with the law” or appealing to personal virtue and feelings of grievance. They largely avoid acknowledging the harm caused by the apparatus, let alone reflecting on their own actions and responsibilities.
Nevertheless, narrative shifts since the lifting of martial law reveal the impact of changes in social values. Limited reflection can be found among those occupying peripheral institutional positions or whose experiences challenged their previous worldviews. Through the interplay between what is emphasized and what is left unspoken, we can observe how dominant memory becomes both a backdrop and a resource through which different groups negotiate, reconfigure, and adapt their memories and identities.