二戰結束後，思想家急於撇清與侵華歷史的關係，所有被他們視為轉向 和斷裂的行為，其實都是一種身分方法，幫助自己切割與戰前歷史的關係。 以致90 年代以後右翼提出對戰前歷史敘述的修正，似乎與戰後既有的論述 相比，是一種斷裂。然而，這是一種戰後遲早要出現的斷裂，只有這樣的斷 裂，才能彌補之前因為強行切割戰前與戰後所累積的沮喪，故這種修正主義 的斷裂是在呼應戰前的問題意識，因而其實不能視為是斷裂，而是辯證、巡 迴、換軌或輪替。此一辯證的現象揭露出，戰前遭知識界所謂斷裂或轉向的 批評，不是因為他們在本質上是斷裂或轉向，而是因為戰後的歷史斷代方 法，規定了戰前的變化是斷裂或轉向，即不承認斷裂之前與之後共同構成不 可分割的全面歷史。換言之，戰前的所謂人格斷裂不是歷史的必然走向或軍 國主義壓迫的必然妥協，而是德富、內藤、吉野、清澤等等思想家邏輯的思 辯，他們一心於滿足國權的強化，但缺乏指引，所以隨時可能換軌，換到哪 一軌是他們臨時的選擇，結果也要由他們自己來負責。

Contemporary writers tend to comment on the abruption or the turn in Japan’s pre-war history of thoughts. They fault pre-war intellectuals for changing positions. This paper disputes this popular historiography by showing how many of those criticized thinkers, as well as others, who switched theoretical positions were practicing an identity strategy. The purpose of a writer to assert certain political thoughts was primarily about finding a right place for Japan, which fell into the identity crisis after Meiji Restoration. One major task was to define Japan’s relationship with China. This paper argues that different approaches to China represented different logical solutions to Japan’s identity. What featured Japan’s modern history and its attitude toward China was not the contents of any particular thought. Rather, it was the need for a solution. This need prompted thinkers to move from one position to another, in any direction. Logical inconsistency was the spirit of the history which contemporary writers continue carrying.