:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:排除與補殘--從晚近同婚倡議探究臺灣性別政治鬥爭
書刊名:應用倫理評論
作者:洪凌 引用關係
作者(外文):Hung, Lucifer
出版日期:2015
卷期:58
頁次:頁175-205
主題關鍵詞:想像不家庭大替換性別治理同性婚姻酷兒左翼Imagine-no-familyGreat replacementGrand remplacementGender governanceSame-sex marriageQueer and Leftism
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:81
  • 點閱點閱:245
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。
This article proposes an urgent and anti-normative 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.
期刊論文
1.葉保強(2002)。全球環境管制體制急需建立:從海牙會議失敗談起。應用倫理研究通訊,24,8-24。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.劉人鵬(20131200)。章太炎的「神經病」:作為生存位置與革命知識情感動能。文化研究,16,81-124。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.林芳玫(19980600)。當代臺灣婦運的認同政治:以公娼存廢爭議為例。中外文學,27(1)=313,56-87。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Donaldson, Thomas、Preston, Lee E.(1995)。The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts evidence, and implications。The Academy of Management Review,20(1),65-91。  new window
5.顧燕翎(19970300)。臺灣婦運組織中性慾政治之轉變--受害客體抑或情慾主體。思與言,35(1),87-118。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.李元貞(2010)。開花結果和待完成的革命--回顧臺灣婦運20 年。回顧臺灣社運二十年(1990-2010)研討會,臺灣教授協會 (會議日期: 20101204)。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.吳明益(2003)。當代臺灣自然寫作研究(博士論文)。國立中央大學,桃園中壢。new window  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.朱建民(2003)。知識論。台北:國立空中大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.丁乃非、劉人鵬(2011)。置疑婚姻家庭連續體。新北市:蜃樓出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.Halberstam, Judith(2011)。The Queer Art oj Failure, Durham and London。Durham and London:Duke University Press Books。  new window
4.劉人鵬、白瑞梅、丁乃非(2007)。罔兩問景:酷兒閱讀政略。桃園:國立中央大學性別研究室。  延伸查詢new window
5.Rawls, John(1993)。Political Liberalism。Cambridge University Press。  new window
其他
1.王顥中(20130629)。平等的幻象,www.coolloud.org.tw/node/74787。  延伸查詢new window
2.洪凌(20130831)。與幻象對話:論反社會酷兒與臺灣同婚訴求,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/75463。  延伸查詢new window
3.劉文(2013)。婚權無法解決的同志困境--為何我反對婚權平等運動,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/74833, 2015/02/06。  延伸查詢new window
4.想像不家庭(2013)。專題系列與專欄文章群,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/tag/想像不家庭-0, 2015/02/16。  延伸查詢new window
5.卡維波(2001)。「婦權派」與「性權派」的兩條女性主義路線在臺灣,http://intermargins.net/repression/theory/difference.htm。  延伸查詢new window
6.吳紹文(20130829)。【同家會來稿】系列一:毀家廢婚?保家廢婚?保家保婚?,www.coolloud.org.tw/node/75445。  延伸查詢new window
7.洪凌(2012)。論居住權、罔兩傳承(的可能性),以及正典社運身分證政治的不可欲,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/ node/68063。  延伸查詢new window
8.孫窮理(2012)。客人沒來,就先動筷子吧:聊聊那個缺了席的公共,http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/67959。  延伸查詢new window
9.Quelennec, Julien,林詠心(2015)。誰是查理?再思查 理事件後的集體狂熱與言論自由,http://www. coolloud.org.tw/node/81723, 2015/03/16。  延伸查詢new window
10.Zanichkowsk, Anders(2013)。Why I Oppose Marriage Equality,http://azanichkowsky.wordpress.com/ 2013/06/26/why-i-oppose-marriage-equality/, 2015/02/16。  new window
11.王家祥(2003)。我所知道的自然寫作與臺灣土地,http://ecophilia.fo.ntu.edu.tw/read/read/1997-0910h. html, 2010/01/11。  延伸查詢new window
12.趙祥(1997)。謝林的美學,http://www.GK.com/ chzao.htm, 2009/03/24。  new window
圖書論文
1.莊世同(2008)。合法性與整全性:對德沃金法治觀的審視與反思。2008法律思想與社會變遷。台北:中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。  延伸查詢new window
2.劉人鵬(2011)。晚清毀家廢婚論與親密關係政治。置疑婚姻家庭連續體。台灣:華大學亞太/文化研究室。  延伸查詢new window
3.丁乃非(2003)。位移與游動:菁英女性「家園」理的蒼蠅貓狗。性工作研究。中壢:中央大學性/別研究室。  延伸查詢new window
4.何春蕤(2007)。看/不見疊影:家務與性工作中的婢妾身形。罔兩問景:酷兒閨讀攻略。中壢:國立中央大學性別研究室。  延伸查詢new window
5.洪凌(2013)。誰什麼的家。新道德主義:兩岸三地性別尋思。中壢:國立中央大學性別研究室。  延伸查詢new window
6.丁乃非、謝孟蓉、陳雅華(2003)。娼妓、寄生蟲、與國家女性主義之『家』。性工作研究。中壢:中央大學性/别研究室。  延伸查詢new window
7.Klouser, K. D.、Bernard, Gert(1999)。A Critique of Principlism。Meaning and Medicine: A Reader in the Philosophy of Health Care。New York:Routledge。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE