樂生故事— 樂生院拆遷抗爭中的敘事、主體與抵抗政治

Abstract

本文以多重敘事的書寫策略，透過不同的文化形式中介，以三個版本的敘事探詢關於樂生院拆遷抗爭中廣泛受到爭論的抗爭主體—「樂生院民」的主體性及抵抗政治。第一個版本的敘事，以2004年之後參與抗爭的行動者的角度，再現自己視域中的樂生院民。透過抗爭中行動者的紀錄、通訊等文化形式中介，以一般所謂「抗爭歷程」為書寫架構的敘事。當中行動者慣用「社會運動」預存的語言系統，以及此種敘事的時空架構，限制了樂生院民在當中被認識的面貌。第二個版本的敘事，是以剪報系統的大量歷史檔案，策略性地重新閱讀�銘寫關於樂生院民長期與來與院方管理者、外來者的關係，視其為歷史中面對壓迫有能動性的主體，重新建構一段關於樂生院民的「反抗意識」的歷史敘事。然而此種敘事的生產機制，正是在策略性的讀�寫中，繼續再生產一種對於可被再現的客觀真實的慾望。第三個版本的敘事，是以深度訪談樂生院民的口述史紀錄為中介的文化形式，試圖讓個別的樂生院民「為自己發聲」。然而，這些話語中用以認識壓迫的形式、行動的可能以及與他者的關係的語言，仍難避免意識型態與語言的囚籠。 最終，再現自己經驗中主觀的視域中認識的他者、以史料編纂方式在大量檔案中重建關於他者的客觀事實、或是讓他者自己發聲，這三者其實是同一種構造的三個面向，最終當中的「他者」都是外於自身存在的「絕對的他者」。如何在書寫中搭建一個弱者得以發聲的舞台？「讓」他們發聲�「為」他們發聲，其實僅是在語言的牢籠之中的一體兩面。而對於樂生院民的主體面貌的探詢，必然是挫敗與不能認識的。最終必須探詢作為書寫主體對於真實的慾望，如何透過文化形式中介，生產出多重而矛盾的書寫主體樣貌。而僅能在語言與身體的書寫（實踐）中，一次次建構�解構�重構書寫的主體。

During the protest against demolishing Losheng (Happy Life) sanatorium, the role and position of the Losheng inhabitants, who are mostly aged leprosy patients, is the point at issue in the full light of public notice. In this paper, I take a multi-narrative strategy to explore the highly debated issue of subjectivity and politics of resistance of these residents, and thus I juxtapose three versions of narratives which were mediated by different cultural forms.

The first narrative is to represent inhabitants of Losheng from my own perspective and horizon, based on my first-hand experience as a young activist during the up to now three-years protest, and it is mediated by the cultural form of the taken notes and inter/intra-group communication. It take the so-called ‘political process’ as the main writing framework. In which, the way to understand inhabitants of Losheng are confined by the conventional sense of ‘social movement’, pre-existing analytical categories, and the time/space frame of this genre of narrative. In the second version of the narrative, I review great volume of press report and strategically re-read and re-inscribe the antagonistic/coordinating relations between inhabitants, administrators and other local elites. It considers residents as the historical agent who made their own ‘History’ with spontaneity and consciousness, and thus I reconstruct a historical figuration about the inhabitants as intending subject of resistance. However, it is just through the very strategic reading/inscribing that the productive mechanism of such narrative tenaciously and in complicity reproduces the desires for a single, linear, and objective reality which can be totally represented. The third narrative is based on the in-depth interviews of three leading members of the Losheng inhabitants, mediated by the word-by-word record of the interviewees’ oral histories, which endeavors to provide an opportunity for individual resident to ‘speak for himself/herself’. Nevertheless, the ideological issue is still difficult to escape, unfolding in how they understand and represent the forms of oppression, the possibility of action, and the relationship with others. In the above-mentioned analysis, the three genre of narratives , either based on representing ‘others’ from my empirical experience, constructing objective reality (about ‘others’) by compiling historical document, or inviting them to make their own voices, imply three facets of the same structure of subjectivity. Eventually the ‘others’ are still “absolute others” extrinsic to their own existence. How to establish a stage for those “disadvantaged” to voice their views? In fact, ‘to let them speak themselves’ and ‘to speak for them’ is the two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, attempts to probe the Subjectivity/subjectivities of Losheng inhabitants are destined for failure. It is a secret blank wrapped by heterogeneous narratives. At the end, we have to problematize and sensitize the desire for a single reality, and probe into how it produces multiple and contradictory subjectivities through mediation of cultural forms. What is feasible is to construct/deconstruct/reconstruct the writing subjects, either linguistically or bodily, in praxis of the politics of writing.