薩伊德曾指出：自第一次世界大戰至1950年代之間的新興民族主義浪潮中，有兩個完全不同的政治階段。其一為民族主義型反帝國主義的時期；第二是隨之而起的解放運動型反帝國主義的抵抗。而這兩個時期各有不同的「想像的文化」。但若缺乏第一時期，則無論在歷史或政治上都不可能有第二時期的出現（E. Said, 1990）。而在日治時代的臺灣，民族主義雖確已萌芽，但因為臺灣人的「想像的文化」內容受到歷史的各種制約，所以仍僅停留於第一階段。易言之，直到1920年代為止，臺灣人的「共同體的想像（imaginings of communities）」並未達於近代國民國家的民族認同層次，而僅限於以祭祀公業、同鄉會、宗親會、村廟等地方團體或社會集團為媒介，對多元價值及複數集團進行認同與忠誠的分割。儘管如此，這種對於古老共同體的想像，畢竟也因著1923年日本殖民政策由漸進統治轉換成為內地延長主義，將日本民商法適用於臺灣後而開始解體，並逐漸走向對近代型共同體（國民國家）的想像之路。然後又在日本法西斯勢力崛起之後遭到重挫。本論文所處理的，正是藉著檢討臺灣的慣習法中與臺灣人自我認同關係最深的「祭祀公業」制度的法律性質，以分析祭祀公業之沒落如何改變了臺灣人民族認同的形式與內涵。

It is well known that by and large the development of colonial legal system in Taiwan can be divided into two periods: 1) the period of ritsurei as principle (1896-1921); 2) the period of chokurei as principle (1922-1945). During the second period, in principle the Japanese law was extended to Taiwan through chokurei, with exception for Taiwanese laws to be preserved through special chokurei. This dichotomy of principle/exception was sometimes criticized as the opportunism of an incomplete integration policy, but in fact it brought about a situation of cunning of reason where the interest of colonizers and that of the colonized unconsciously converged. The case of whether to abolish Kong-giap is one example. Most literature on Kong-giap maintains that the position of abolishing Kong-giap held by the majority of Japanese legal professionals in Taiwan was a carefully planned conspiracy by the colonial rulers. This view overestimates the capacity of the Japanese ruling group because it fails to take into consideration how seriously are serious students constrained by modern laws. The legal bureaucrats in colonial Taiwan were legal bandits who believed in legal positivism. They were very different from the calculating and strategic-minded Hara Takashi and Goto Shinpei in their logical thinking. Based on the empirical foundation of the original texts of legal decision in civil matters contained in the “Archives of Courts under the Japanese Rule,” this project seeks to prove that at least during the period of Taisho Democracy the severe critique of these colonial legal professionals of Kong-giap had nothing to do with the Kominka movement. Their demand of abolishing Kong-giap was mostly motivated by their training in positivistic laws and experiences in legal practice. For them the rights and duties of a modernized state must not be defined by social customs. Rather, they must be clarified by law. A group of Taiwanese intellectuals began to employ modern legal and social theories to intervene in the debate on Kong-giap in the 1920s. By way of printing media, political associations, and the advocating of the modern values of Western Europe, they formed the public sphere of the Taiwanese society. With the development of capitalism, a Taiwanese civil society was emerging. The formation of modern public sphere in Taiwan signaled the emergence of modern Taiwanese imagination of state and nation.