After the movement of invigorating the local culture, which originated in Japan, was enlarged to cover Taiwan, three streams of cultural discourses were respectively but also mutually evoked in Taiwan: “the officially-made discourse on the local culture” with the wartime spiritual construction of people as its primary objective, referring to the issue of shaping proper identities that would qualify people of the nation; “the native discourse on the local culture” mainly concerned about the subjectivity and modernity of Taiwanese culture, referring to the construction of the local subjectivity; “the discourse on the gaichi culture” made by the Japanese in Taiwan by taking into consideration their social circumstances and future vision, lying between the former two poles of cultural discourses. The divergent positions and patterns of discourses on the local culture in Taiwan inaugurated a space for the mediation and intervention of multiple streams of cultural power and furthermore buffered the effects of direct confrontation that might be provoked in an encounter between the cultural policy enforced by the ruling class and the local cultural circle. Cultural mobilization served as the general background of the cultural revival in Taiwan during World War II, which was the result of an interaction among the above-mentioned three streams of cultural discourses. Professors of Taipei Imperial University interfered in surveys on the colonial development in the South and in researches on Taiwan, so they are involved in three kinds of the discourses and result in the impact on it. This paper attempts to explore the diverse cultural discourses in Taiwan through the following subtopics: (1) How did the various measures enforced in different phases of the movement of Japanese assimilation of the local culture influence the trend of localization in Taiwan? (2) How could the geopolitical changes aroused by military expansion and the cultural movement around the Ring of Pan-East-Asian Collective Prosperity launched by the Japanese Empire revitalize the given cultural position of a colony ranked under the imperial standards of categorization? How did the cultural elites in Taiwan appropriate the local cultural discourse in support of the royal monarchy in Japan to strive for wartime maintenance and empowerment of the local culture? (3) Under the operation of “the native discourse on the local culture,” what kinds of fruitful results were achieved during the wartime cultural revival in Taiwan? How did the ruling class eventually become aware of the strategies adopted by “the native discourse on the local culture,” which took advantage of the interstices within the official frame of cultural policies and later as a result was compelled to make amendments to its strategies in terms of the strictly modified cultural policies? (4) During the period of transition from the “homeland culture” to the “local culture” in Taiwanese culture, as well as situated in a popular trend of constructing Taiwan as an academic subject of study officially espoused by the colonial government, what kind of role did professors of Taipei Imperial University perform? (5) During this period when an academic division of labor was effected under the cultural governance and the system of cultural mobilization, how did professors of the Department of Literature in Taipei Imperial University, as the lowest rank of the technical capital in the system of academic mobilization, interfere in different attitudes towards the support or governance of culture in Taiwan so as to become either the defender of cultural autonomy or the collaborator of cultural governance?