本文試圖以後殖民主義的觀點,把台灣自九○年代以來蓬勃發展的同志運動放在國際文化霸權的框架裡來思考;主要的目的,是企圖為困擾本土同運己久的“現身”問題探索一個可能的出路。因為對西方的同運而言,現身向來是運動的起步,但是台灣的同運由於本土社會文化脈絡的殊異,同志普遍對於現身感到力不從心;所以成功的本土同運,基本上是透過像“集體現身”這樣權宜的概念與做法,“越過”現身這個問題來逕自開展的。但是仔細分析台灣同運中主張必須現身的論理依據,以及傾向規避或拖延現身的實際運動者在運動上所遭遇的若干困難,會發現現身這個困擾的揮之不去,其實是援用以身分政治為基礎的西方同運模子所產生的、水土不服的典範危機。所以雖然在西方(同運)的文化霸權籠罩之下,另類運動路線的發展並不容易,但若要徹底解決這個困局,也只能發揮後殖民自主的精神,順著本土脈絡的殊異,思考如何能發展出一種非身分政治的同運走向。
Since the 1990s' emergence of \gay\activism in Taiwan, the problem of ”coming out” has been a constant bother. Due to significant socio-cultural differences, corning out, the basic step for metropolitan gay activism, turns out insurmountably difficult for local gay people to put into practice. So local \gay\activism that has successfully mobilized support rather ”bypassed” this problem by inventing such expediency as ”collective coming out” and other compromised starategies. However, a critical analysis of either the logic behind certain local insistence on coming out or the occasional dealdlocks facing local \gay\activism demonstrates that coming out still remains prerequisite for an activism based on identity politics. Thus, one radical way out of this predicament seems to lie in the assertion of a postcolonial autonomy which will free local \gay\activism from the hegemonic shadow of its metropolitan counterpart so that local limitations, instead of being lamented, could be exploited to devise an alter-native form of \gay\ activism.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。