本文探討一個認同對外交政策的影響，並以「芬蘭化」的概念為例。外交政策基本上是對「我群/我們」概念的回應，而一個政治社群諸如「我們是誰?」、「在世界上的角色和地位」對問題的回答，則大致是穩定的。爬梳一個社群對「我們」概念如「民族」與「國家」的理解與論述方式，將有助於解釋該社群之外交政策的大致走向。

「芬蘭化」(Finlandization)一詞源於 1948 年芬蘭與蘇聯之協定，意指小國在其對外行為上，主動將大國之國家利益納入考量，不做出有害大國利益之事，從而交換大國對其獨立性與自主性的承諾。既有文獻常將此一特殊中立政策的做成，歸因於小國在現實政治的限制下被動但理性之反應。本文從「文化民族」(Kulturnation)以及「國家民族」(Staatsnation)之論述，將 「芬蘭化」的政策，理解為是對芬蘭歷史脈絡與民族主義思想傳統的復歸與重構。這不僅賦予理性主義的觀點更具體的內涵，也有助於解釋芬蘭的中立政策，由消極到積極的可能性條件。

This paper explores the impact of identity on foreign policy, with the idea of “Finlandization” as an empirical case. Foreign policy can be conceptualized as a response to “we” concepts, and a political community’s answers to such questions as “who we are” and “our roles and places in the world” are generally stable. It is thus helpful to grasp the general tendency of a community’s foreign policy if the ways in which it understands and organizes the basic “we” concepts such as how the “nation” and the “state” are identified.

The term “Finlandization” originates from the 1948 Finnish-Soviet Treaty, and is used to refer to a small state’s foreign behavior that it takes a great power’s national interests into consideration and avoids actions that hinder the great power, so that its independence and autonomy can be assured. Most literature understands the making of this peculiar policy of neutrality in terms of a small state’s passive but rational action under the constraints of Realpolitik. By analyzing the Finnish discourses of “cultural nation” (Kulturnation)and “state-nation”(Staatsnation), this paper interprets the policy-line of Finlandization as a resort to, as well as a remaking of, the Finnish historical context and tradition. This way of reasoning not only provides the rationalist accounts with more substantial contents, it also helps explain how Finland’s neutrality shifted from a passive stance to a more active one.