(179)
|
| 排除與補殘 — 從晚近同婚倡議探究臺灣性別政治鬥爭 |
| Exclusion and Compensation: Analysing Same-Sex Marriage Propaganda and Relative Power Struggles within Taiwan Gender Politics |
 |
| 作者 |
洪凌 |
| Author |
Lucifer Hung |
| 關鍵詞 |
想像不家庭、
大替換、
性別治理、
同性婚姻、
酷兒左翼
|
| Keywords |
Imagine-No-Family,
Great Replacement (Grand remplacement),
Gender Governance,
Same-Sex Marriage,
Queer and Leftism
|
| 摘要 |
本論文以同性婚姻為起點，分析同志正典、國家女性主義、權利話語的串連。同時，此態勢造就罔兩、酷兒、情慾／性別壞分子的再浮現 (re-emergence) 與抵抗干預。正典性別主體與國家機器共生扶持，扶植家馴化的同性戀主體為幫手，張揚道德修辭、代理父母管訓，經營出愈發細緻嚴厲的夾殺與排擠。階級位移的變遷與高敏感度，驅使中產同志將戰力凝聚於「人權」如婚姻權利。同婚倡議的修辭（如探視、保險、財產分配）是此結構的副產品。藉由單偶、中產雙薪、性別中性、生養小孩等，同婚主體與公民社會共生共構，朝向最終願景的性別替換：同婚主體排除非「我族」的性少數，加入治理階級，促進血緣家庭結構的鞏固，豐富生殖政治的不朽，迎向正典性別／國族共同體的創構。 |
| Abstract |
This article proposes an urgent and anti-pormative critique against the backdrop of recently heated celebration and debates around LGBT marriage equality, its legislation, and possible assimilation of LGBT people into the patronizing "good and healthy citizenship" in Taiwan. Probably since 2009, dominant politics of same-sex marriage and its voice calling for legitimating within Taiwan Tungzi community have produced several poignant effects, such as self-disciplinary image to portrait a rigid and modestly middle-class political agenda to include lesbian and gay monogamous romantic narrative within homo-nationalistic coercion, dismissing or even indignantly attacking gender/sex outlaws like BBES practitioners, BDSMers, sex workers, gender non-conformists, and many provocative but deemed as "non-practical" living modes of queers.
My stances in this writing will be an anti-homo- normative and militantly critical position against the seemingly all-encompassing interpellation of a "get better" futuristic imago performed by and contained within normalized LGBT polemics. This polemics has been excessively eager to submit itself to "straighten" once dissident and fantastic cultural politics written by queer sexual minorities into a nationalistic- cum-familial structure of life governance. My reading will show this universalization of LGBT's bending into narrowly defined "family" might, on the one hand, dissolve the recalcitrant dynamics produced and maintained by dissident subjects and, on the other hand, forcibly sell a "homonation-state" reproduction industry into those who would not or could not happily embrace such a teleological end which inscribes homosexuals and its associates into a clean, linear, and progressive procreative futurism. |
|
|
|
