本研究以李昂（1999）《自傳.小說》為案例，從文類與論述策略兩方面探討《自傳.小說》情慾書寫形式的對話性，並推敲其批判意識。有別於過去的李昂研究多從批評者個人的性別意識形態、女性主義立場、歷史考察與社會觀察心得對李昂的情慾書寫進行解讀和批評，本研究提出「書寫形式的意識形態分析」的研究策略，對李昂的情慾書寫進行論述分析，同時藉此重新解讀與評價其批判 意識。 研究發現，李昂藉由創造「虛實參半的『小說的自傳』」的文類，以及「多聲並存」、「重複書寫」等論述策略，試圖質疑傳統歷史書寫典範在認識論、敘事性與歷史敘述上的性別盲點和性別偏見。李昂並藉由凸顯不被傳統歷史書寫所關注或正視的女人情慾題材挑戰傳統歷史書寫典範中被視為理所當然的教條，並致力於思索和開發其他可能的歷史書寫形式。據此本研究指出，李昂情慾書寫形式的對話性一方面呼應了Bakhtin 對於複調小說如何在眾聲喧嘩的語言形式中解構官方意識形態的描述，另一方面也蘊藏且實踐了將歷史書寫性別化的批判意識。這裡的性別化，具有批判傳統歷史書寫中的性別問題，以及重新建構另個有利於動員性別意識形態鬥爭的書寫形式之雙重意涵。

This paper is a discourse analysis of the genre and discursive strategies of Li Ang’s erotic writing in Autobiography: A Novel (1999); it analyzes the dialogicity of form of erotic writing and considers its critical consciousness. Unlike previous discussions which seem to have focused on “sex” or have originated from the viewpoint of feminism on personal observations of the historical and social context, this paper argues that Li attempts to deploy a brand-new form of writing, so as to re-present the questions of sex, gender, and “woman” in this piece of erotic writing. Therefore a brand-new discourse analysis, “the form-ideological approach,” is required for Li’s Autobiography: A Novel. This paper finds that Li aims to question the canons of male historiography in terms of its epistemology, narrativity and historical narration by deploying the specific genre and discursive strategies of erotic writing; that is: (1) the genre of the novelized autobiography(whichisa blending offactand fiction);(2)narratorialmulti-voicedness; and (3) an iterational time-texture. Besides this, Li also emphasizes eroticism so as to dismantle the dogmas and norms of male historiography, thereby constructing an alternative historiography, the so-called “her-stories.” Based on the research findings, this paper concludes that the dialogicity of Li’s erotic writing echoes Bakhtinian descriptions of the language process of democratization. This process is, on the one hand, mobilized by the form of the polyphonic novel; on the other hand, it allows for the deconstruction the gender politics of male historiography while reconstructing the form of writing for the purpose of ideological political struggle.