美國文學、法律與正義：從布拉德福德到霍桑

Abstract

本研究處理從美國殖民時期到內戰前夕，文學與法律之間的關係。作為一部橫跨約兩百年的文化史，它關注的不僅是法律文本或文學作品本身，更是這兩者在特定歷史脈絡中如何互相介入、彼此塑造。本研究主張，儘管法律的本質在於設限與排除，而文學則傾向開放與包容，兩者之間的關係並非對立，而是一種充滿張力的互動。法律藉由界定主體、劃設權利與義務的邊界來維持秩序；文學則經常鬆動這些邊界，使被排除者得以發聲，或讓被視為「他者」的角色進入倫理與情感的視野。在多重系統(polysystems)或是社會系統(social systems) 的理論視角下，這種共同演化的關係乃是朝向正義的動態歷程；更嚴格地說，正是這樣一種不斷指向正義的過程，構成了正義本身的運動。 為了呈現文學與法律之間彼此對話、相互建構的關係，本研究重訪「法律與文學」此一學科的濫觴，並在其內部確立「關於法律的文學」（literature about law）這一研究範疇，以與傳統上將文學視為輔助法律判斷的「為法律而讀的文學」（literature for law），以及將文學視為對現狀不公之直接控訴的「反法律的文學」（literature against law）作出區隔。「關於法律的文學」強調文學與法律之間的複雜交織與倫理拉鋸，它既不完全服務於法律體系，也不單純站在法律的對立面，而是透過「彌賽亞式的批評活動」(messianic criticism)，讓法律的線性/現世時間與文學的岔出/異樣時間逐漸靠近，直至重合，而所謂的「政治」(the politics)於焉產生。 這個研究取徑讓我們得以重新思考正義：它不再是一種穩固的制度終點，而是讓各種導致不公與壓迫的結構停止運作。本研究的六個主要章節即是試圖透過此一視角，檢視文學與法律如何在不同歷史時刻交會，並共同參與對主體、人格的再定義。第一章從殖民時期美國的法律實踐出發，探討法律如何透過劃設任意的邊界，將「真正的人」與「不完全的人」區分開來。第二章則聚焦於山姆森・奧康（Samson Occom）與費莉絲・惠特莉（Phillis Wheatley）兩位少數族裔作家的書寫，分析他們如何挑戰這些任意性的劃界，並擴展了「何謂人」的想像範疇。第三章討論法律如何回應上述挑戰，其中最關鍵的，是一種看似承認、實則強化支配的悖論機制：十八世紀的美國法律開始賦予奴隸與兒童某種程度的法律主體地位，卻又將他們的「人格」視為不完整，認為他們需要父權角色的引導與監護。第四章解讀美國早期小說的興起作為對法律不平等的文學回應，並主張查爾斯・布羅克登・布朗（Charles Brockden Brown）的小說《威蘭》（Wieland）中介於第一人稱與第三人稱之間的神秘聲音，動搖了「穩定人格」的觀念。第五章轉向一樁真實的種族越界案件，指出在特定情境下，法庭如何透過關懷（compassion）來瓦解不正義的分類制度。第六章則以喬治奧・阿岡本（Giorgio Agamben）的理論為基礎，重新閱讀霍桑的短篇小說與《紅字》，指出霍桑如何在文學中設想一種超越二元對立、通往自由的倫理與敘事形式。

Summarizing his lifelong research on the relationship between law and literature, Robert A. Ferguson once wrote, “Law closes things that once were open,” while “Literature opens things that were once closed” (Practice Extended 1). The formulation gives the impression that literature opens up what law closes off, and law then closes off what literature opens up. One liberates, the other restricts. However, it would be a mistake to assume that literature is essentially progressive and law is hopelessly conservative. Instead of thinking in binary opposition terms, a more accurate understanding of the relationship can be gained through the application of polysystems or social systems model, in which literature and law emphasize different aspects of the human world—one pursues freedom, while the other values stability. This revised thesis, though, should not be thought of as describing the literary system as inherently dynamic and the legal system as intrinsically static; rather, both systems change through time. In its contact with literature, law becomes lenient, less stringent. Meanwhile, the interaction with law also prompts literature to modify its claims on freedom. This co-evolution, I argue, is oriented towards justice; or, more precisely, the orientation itself is the motion of justice. The project is divided into six main chapters, designed in the form of three dialogues between law (Chapters One, Three, and Five) and literature (Chapters Two, Four, and Six). Chapter One begins with a discussion of how law, by setting up arbitrary boundaries in colonial America, separated proper humans from less-than-humans. Chapter Two examines how efforts made by Samson Occom and Phillis Wheatley challenged the arbitrariness of these boundaries and extended what can be counted as properly human. Chapter Three describes law’s reaction to these challenges, most important of which being the invention of the paradoxical mechanism of domination through recognition. It demonstrates how eighteenth-century law in America gave disadvantaged groups like slaves and children a legal standing, but the personhood of a slave or a child was thought of as incomplete and, thus, requiring proper guidance from father figures. Chapter Four interprets the emergence of the novel in early America as literature’s response to legal inequality. It argues that the mysterious voice in Charles Brockden Brown’s Wieland—something that appears between the first-person and the third-person—undermines the notion of stable personhood. Chapter Five examines a real case of racial passing and demonstrates how, through compassion, unjust categorizations can be dismantled in court. Chapter Six gives an Agamben-inspired reading of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short stories and The Scarlet Letter, shedding light on how he envisioned a way to overcome conceptual binaries and to find freedom in literature.