「同志」的誕生：概念史視角下行為語意朝認同語意之轉型

Abstract

本文採取概念史的研究進路，探討關乎同性情欲的主導語意如何及為何從行為語意轉變為認同語意，期能克服既有同志史研究的三種盲點︰以解嚴（1987）為歷史書寫的「起點」，將同志史化約為同志運動史，只專注處理其後約20年間，平反污名與爭取公民權利的過程；未深究不同語意間的關係，如「同志」、「酷兒」與「怪胎」的意涵差異與其間不對稱的反省關係；僅從法律或精神醫學等單一觀點觀察同性情欲。 首先，本文將建構關乎同性情欲的語意場，藉此觀察不同語意的關係及其牽涉的歷史，並區分不同時間性的過程，以捕捉不同速度的歷史變動。本研究發現，就使用頻率與使用方式而言，關乎同性情欲的主導語意歷經所謂的轉型時代（1895∼1925）後，從行為或行動語意，逐漸朝性科學所生產的身分語意轉變，1970年代中期以後且開始萌生認同語意。 其次，本文將從長時段的轉型背景，進一步聚焦於兩個時間較短的過程。其一是「同性戀」被譯介於漢語的歷史時刻，與二戰後到1990年的台灣。其間，各種與「同性戀」銜接的個體性，不但被以心理學式的觀點歸因於心理，更在警察、心理衛生、精神醫學、輔導、泌尿科等領域的運作中，在管制社會的各種措施與個體的相互觀察中成形。儘管異性戀�同性戀的區分建立後，逐漸發展為兩面皆可銜接、開展，但「愛死病」時期（1983∼1990）的社會恐慌導致「同性戀」、「玻璃圈」在語意上與「愛死病」緊密連結，使其時間面向趨於封閉，從而未能在1990年代成為「同志運動」的主導概念。 第二段過程是1970年代以降，至「同志」、「酷兒」、「怪胎」等語意出現的1990年代。本文追溯政治與文學的歷史，說明「同志」語意在這些場的接受狀況，以及「酷兒」與「怪胎」語意的出現脈絡。集中討論這幾個語意之間的關係，還有使用這些語意自我認同的階級條件。「同志」語意的時間面向較「同性戀」語意開放，能夠銜接前者的行動較後者為多，而且，在1990年代，「同志」語意再生產自身的機率較高。於是，人們有可能以之期望性與性別的結構改變，甚至發起「同志運動」。「同志」語意在社會運動中的使用方式，使趨於心理歸因的「同性戀」概念逐漸轉向社會歸因。「酷兒」與「怪胎」這兩個語意儘管集體動員的成效不如「同志」語意，卻具有反省「同志」語意的使用方式與意義的作用。 最後，在考察這三段不同時間性過程的基礎上，本研究得到下述三項綜合觀察的結論。一、不同時代事物的同時性：「同志」語意是1990年代才出現的，在此之前，同性情欲在台灣主要實現為「雙重生活」。二、在政治行動上，不斷自我生產的「性少數」使「同志」語意的複雜度增加，造成自我認同及政治行動的困難。三、我們使用的性概念與其歷史息息相關。拉長時間範圍的二階觀察，將使我們有更高機率企及自由度較現在為高的性概念。

This thesis investigate how and why the leading semantics about same-sex desire change from that of behavior or action to that of identification. Taking the approach of conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte), I attempt to overcome three blind spots of existing gay history. The first blind spot is to set the abolishing of martial law as the beginning of gay historiography, thus reducing gay history to a history of gay movement, which focused on the overturning of stigma and the struggling of civil rights. The second has to do with overlooking the nuance meaning differences between semantics of same-sex desire, e.g. tong-zhi, ku-er and guai-tai, as well as the asymmetrical relationships between them. The third is to observe same-sex desire only via a single perspective, e.g. that of law or psychiatry. Firstly, I construct the semantic field of same-sex desire, to observe the relationships of different semantics and the related history. I distinguish processes of different temporalities to grasp historical changes of different speeds. I discover that, in terms of using frequency and ways of usage, the leading semantics of same-sex desire has gradually shifted from semantics of behavior or action to that of identity which was produced by European discourses of sex, through and after the “epoch of transformation” (1895-1925), and to that of identification after mid-1970s. Secondly, after describing the long-term structural transformation, I focus on two processes of shorter time-range. The first process is the historical moment at which the term “homosexuality” was translated into Chinese, and the period until 1990s in post-WWII Taiwan. In this interval, various individualities that could be articulated to 'homosexuality' (tong-xing-lian) were produced and gradually stabilized out of the mutual observations between the manoeuvres of regulating the social (e.g. police, mental hygiene, psychiatry, counseling, urology, etc.) and the 'homosexual' individuals. Besides, these individualities were psychologized, i.e. attributed to the psyche according to psychological perspectives. Although the both sides of the distinction heterosexuality/homosexuality gained later the possibilities of articulation and development, the semantics tong-xing-liang and bo-li-quan ('queer circle') tended to be closed in the temporal dimension due to the social panic rendered by by ai-si disease (AIDS). This closure hindered both terms to become dominating concept of gay movement (Tong-zhi yun-dong). The second process unfolded from 1970s to 1990s, in which the semantics tong-zhi, ku-er, guai-tai emerged. Here, I trace the reception of the semantics tong-zhi in the political and literary fields, and clarify the context in which ku-er and guai-tai emerged. I focus on the relationships between these semantics, and the class conditions for self-identifing with them. I argue that the time dimension of the semantics tong-zhi was more open than tong-xing-lian, and there are more actions that can be articulated with tong-zhi. Moreover, the semantics tong-zhi had a higher probability of self-reproduction than that of tong-xing-lian. It thus became possible to formulate a structural change of gender and sexuality with the term tong-zhi, as to mobilize a 'tong-zhi movement'. In consequence of the usage of semantics tong-zhi in social movement, the making of tong-xing-lian was attributed to the social rather than the psychological. Although the semantics ku-er and guai-tai did not perform as good as tong-zhi in regard to mobilization, they produced effective reflections on the latter. These three processes of different temporalities investigated, I then propose three synthetical conclusions. Firstly, we must take the 'contemporaneity of the non-contemporaneous' (Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen) into account. The realization of same-sex desire took a different form, i.e. 'double life,' before the emergence of semantics tong-zhi in 1990s. Secondly, the on-going self-reproduction of 'sex minorities' propelled the complexity of the semantics tong-zhi. This would probably increase both the difficulties to self-identify with tong-zhi (for the individual) and to take political action in the name tong-zhi (for the collective). Thirdly, the concept(s) of sexualities were tightly tangled with histories. A long-term second-order observation could increase the probability to achieve concept(s) of sexualities with greater degree of freedom.