塔斯馬尼亞長久以來就被認定是一個沒有文化與歷史的化外之地。理查．傅納崗﹙Richard Flanagan﹚在《一個遊河嚮導之死》一書當中也指出塔斯馬尼亞經常被刻意塑造為充滿詭異又神秘恐怖的地方﹙grotesque Gothic horrorland﹚，是一個完全不受理性規範的異類空間。這種負面的刻板印象來自於十八世紀的殖民時期，當時英國殖民政府以簡單粗糙的黑白二元論述來鞏固其中心位置，同時又把殖民地的人民及他們的文化排除在外，並且將其歸類為野蠻落後的他者。殖民者和被殖民者的身份只能以中心—邊緣的關係來解釋，並且以穩定不變的形式存在著。在這個由二元論述構成的權力結構中，殖民者總是能以建立一個現代進步的國家認同的理由來合理化一切對殖民地的剝削和殘害。傅納崗指出這個二元論述的思考架構即使到了今天仍然存在，塔斯馬尼亞的人民和文化的邊緣處境依然沒有任何改善。傅納崗在《一個遊河嚮導之死》﹙Death of a River Guide﹚、《隻手回聲》﹙The Sound of One Hand Clapping﹚、《古爾德魚書》﹙Gould’s Book of Fish﹚以及《慾》﹙Wanting﹚四本書當中都談到了這個主題。本論文主要在探討傅納崗如何以這四本小說檢視二元論述的主流價值並試圖以多元文化的角度重新詮釋歷史。
第一章探討殖民論述如何掌控歷史的詮釋權，壓抑並貶低塔斯馬尼亞的身份認同。啟蒙思想當中直線進步的敘述〈linear-progressive narrative〉、工具理性〈instrumental rationality〉和階序〈hierarchies〉的概念即是殖民者用來編造普世價值並且建立分類機制的依據，其主要目的不外乎是將現實世界的一切簡化，聲稱單一且僵化的歷史詮釋，藉以掩蓋被殖民者文化特殊的屬性並且消除其發言權。
第二章討論傅納崗如何以抗拒論述質疑並挑戰既定的西方主流價值及其合法性，同時強調多元文化共同存在的事實。本章主要著重於傅納崗所採取之非線性的敘述策略，指出傅納崗如何在敘述中夾帶線性思維刻意忽略的面向，企圖創造另類解讀並重新闡明塔斯馬尼亞的身份認同。
第三章進一步探討傅納崗如何以塔斯馬尼亞殖民的經驗和移民的離散經驗來說明身份認同的形成絕非固定及一成不變。傅納崗的作品呈現塔斯馬尼亞由殖民時期到現代社會當中各文化之間不斷拉扯、衝突、交錯混雜和演進的過程，這說明身份認同充滿許多難以確定並且無法事先預知的因素，本身並無任何固定、純粹或單一的本質。傅納崗企圖透過不同文化之間的互動和對話構成一個多元開放的場域，並在其中發展塔斯馬尼亞新的文化位置。

It is all known that Tasmania is very often stereotyped as a primeval land without history and culture. In Death of a River Guide, Flanagan notes Tasmania has long been represented as a “grotesque Gothic horrorland” (132) where darkness and evil are rampant. This negative stereotype can be traced back to the period of British colonial rule in which the colonial narrative used some simple binary logic to categorize Tasmania as the inferior Other and then stereotyped it as backward and uncivilized. What makes it sad is this negative stereotype constantly serves to justify any attempts to exploit Tasmania in the name of civilizing it. As a writer who was born and grew up in Tasmania, Flanagan attempts to reverse this negative stereotype, and that can be seen in Flanagan’s books which clearly show his concern over the silenced voice of Tasmania. They are: Death of a River Guide (1997), The Sound of One Hand Clapping (1998), Gould’s Book of Fish (2001), and Wanting (2008). This dissertation tries to explore how Flanagan uses these books to serve as a great resource to create an alternative interpretation of history and open up new possibilities for social justice and equality.
In Chapter One I use the nineteenth century colonial discourse as an example to explain how dominant narrative misrepresents and devalues Tasmanian culture. I indicate that, through a total control of the means of representation, this colonial narrative categorized Tasmania as essentially inferior in a hierarchical and imbalanced power structure and represented Tasmania as an inferior other who was morally and culturally degenerated. I will be discussing how the colonial narrative used the Enlightenment ideas, especially the taxonomic hierarchies and the linear historiography, to impose a universal and unified worldview so as to strip out the particularity of the Tasmanian culture. With the great help of the taxonomic hierarchies and the linear worldview, the colonial powers constructed a biased understanding of Tasmania, and it has repressed and distorted Tasmania’s identity even until today.
Chapter Two will be centered on Flanagan’s anti-historical and resistance attempts against the dominant discourse. I will take a close look at Flanagan’s questioning of the purity of European cultures and his efforts to develop a perspective outside the Western interpretation: an alternative historiography to contrast the linear worldview constructed by the mainstream discourse. My focus is on how Flanagan challenges the linear Western worldview and its authorial interpretation of reality by using a circular mode of narrative to retell and redefine the long-lost stories of the peripheral people whose voices are repressed and silenced by their imposed inferiority in unbalanced power relations. Flanagan later juxtaposes the two contradictory cultures, Western and Tasmanian, to create a dialogic re-reading of Tasmanian identity and a more comprehensive understanding of history. Here I use Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism to explain the co-existence of various communities and groups and the incessant interaction and exchange between them. This chapter emphasizes that there is no unitary identity in the force field of history, but a variety of identities which coexist and interact with each other as if in a dialogue.
Chapter Three explores the possibility of negotiating a space to reverse the existing power relations. Instead of a closed power system that shuts down any communication with the other cultures, a space for a dialogue between the two opposites in the power hierarchy is a must to create newness and changes. I will discuss how Flanagan uses transnational, transracial and transcultural interactions, especially the diasporic experience, to illustrate the concept of cultural plurality. Concepts like contact zone and Third Space will be applied to explain the construction of diverse identities in Flanagan’s novels. These concepts are helpful in explaining the process of dialogic interaction in which different influences interact and compete with each other to create a new and hybrid form of culture.
This dissertation concludes that the myth of a unified identity is incapable of explaining the complex realities of the real world in Tasmania, and the quest of a unified identity would inevitably lead to the suppression of the minority voice. Actually, identity is never static. It is always in the process of becoming and tends to be unpredictable and uncertain because it is subject to continual and never-ending negotiation, struggle, and contestation that underlie human history.