近代沖繩學之父伊波普猷（1876－1947）透過史學、民俗學和語言學確立了琉球民族的存在，但另一方面，他卻又主張「日琉同祖論」，反對琉球的民族主義。借用法國哲學家Julia Kristeva的話來說，他似乎在主張一種「沒有民族主義的民族」（nation without nationalism）。然而民族有可能不附著於民族主義論述而獨立存在嗎？或者說，在他看似詭論（paradox）的琉球史論述中，隱含著某種特殊的差異與認同建構的意圖？這篇論文，試圖經由分析伊波普猷的「日琉同祖論」的思想結構，對前述問題，提出一個初步解答。本文主張，伊波的「日琉同祖論」是一種弱小民族民族主義的主思想。在它的原型結段，「同祖」的歷史命題企圖以「異中求同」的策略，論述一種既想假借外力以追求解放，又想保有民族主體性的政治路線。這種思考方式，和戰前部分流亡中國的「祖國派」台灣人的想法有類似之處。「日琉同祖論」的晚期型態，放棄了假借外力解放的幻想，加強了日本的他者性，並且深化了沖繩的民族想像。思想上，這是一個更為露骨、激進的民族主義，然而政治上，它卻是一個無法或拒絕實踐的民族主義。然而民族主義思想的出現，並不等於民族主義運動的形成。直到終戰的沖繩近代政治史上，雖然出現了伊波普猷這種迂迴曲折的民族主義思想，但卻始終不曾出現民族主義的政治運動。從民族形成的角度觀之，伊波的時代只能說是琉球民族形成的初期階段而已。在這個限定的意義上，或許我們可以同意，伊波普猷在「日琉同祖論」中所措繪的「ネーションとしての琉球民族」（做為nation的琉球民族）確實是一種「沒有民族主義（運動）的民族（想像）」。

Iha Fuyū (1876-1947), the father of modern Okinawa studies , established the existence of the Ryukyu nation intellectually through his studies in historiography, folklore and linguistics, but denied Ryukyu nationalism politically by advocating the Nichiryu Dōsoron (discourse on the common ancestry of the Japanese and the Ryukyuan peoples). Was he arguing for what Julia Kristeva characterized as a nation eithout nationalism? Or was he trying to insert some special project of difference/identity construction on into his seemingly paradoxical discourse on Ryukyuan history? This paper seeks to offer a preliminary answer to this question by analyzing the intellectual structure of Iha's Nichiryu Dōsoron. This paper argues that Iha's Nichiryu Dōsaran was a variant of the nationalism of the oppressed and small nations. In its prototypical stage, the historical proposition of the discourse attempted to elaborate a political line whereby the Ryukyuan people could preserve their national subjectivity with the help of external forces through a strategy of creating commonality out of differences between Ryukyu and Japan. This mode of thinking reminds one of the so-called ＂motherland faction＂ (sokokuha) of Taiwanese exiles in wartime China who sought to rely on China for liberating their homeland. The later form of Nichiryu Dōsoron abandoned the false hope of relying on external help, strengthened the otherness of Japan, and further deepened the national imagination of Ryukyu. Intellectually it became a much more radical nationalism, and yet politically it was an impracticable nationalism. The emergence of nationalist thought, however, did not mean the formation of a nationalist movement. There was no Ryukyu nationalist movement before the end of WWII, even though an ideology of Ryukyu nationalism did appear in the form of Iha Fuyū's roundabout thoughts. From the perspective of nation-formation, Iha's discourse only signified an early stage of nation-formation in Ryukyu-Okinawa. In this limited sense, one may well agree that the Ryukyu as nation that Iha portrayed in his Nichiryu Di5soron was indeed an (imagination of the) nation without (the movement of) nationalism.