龔鵬程x布朗斯基｜酷兒理論有盡頭嗎？

龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者第六十九期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類社會，只有強化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個人都應(yīng)實踐的活動。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請他對話一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

邁克爾·布朗斯基教授（Professor Michael Bronski）

哈佛大學(xué)媒體和激進主義實踐教授

龔鵬程教授：您好。自1960年代末，在石墻暴動期間，您一直是LGBTQ（同性戀、雙性戀、變性者及酷兒）權(quán)利運動中的一份子。您能否與我們分享一下有關(guān)當(dāng)年的回憶，以及您是如何踏上權(quán)利運動之旅的呢？

邁克爾·布朗斯基教授：龔教授，您好。20歲時，我在石墻暴動幾周后加入了紐約的同性戀解放陣線(GLF)。這是我作為酷兒權(quán)利活動家歷程的開始。

但同性戀解放卻已是我參與的第四次社會正義運動。高中時，在羅馬天主教學(xué)校自由派神職人員的鼓勵下，我在家鄉(xiāng)新澤西州參與了多場民權(quán)游行。到高三時，我參加了反對美國在越南的殘酷軍事行動的游行。1967年，在大學(xué)期間，我的大多數(shù)女性朋友都成為了激進的女權(quán)主義者，我與她們探討，并閱讀了當(dāng)時激進社會正義思想的女權(quán)主義評論，令我對性、性別和權(quán)力的看法都產(chǎn)生了改變。

對我而言，以及對幾乎所有在石墻暴動后參與這些運動的人來說，同性戀解放順理成章地成為下一步行動。這是一場爭取廣泛社會和個人自由、基本憲法權(quán)利的運動，與極權(quán)作斗爭，并承認(rèn)性和性別在每個人生活中的重要性。

在石墻暴動發(fā)生之前，我就“出柜”了——我所有的朋友都知道我是同性戀——但在那個時代“解放”運動還是令人難以置信的。

在同性戀解放陣線的會面中，我們時常通過使用其他運動產(chǎn)生的修辭概念，進行各種令人興奮的政治討論，同時也融合了巨大的、爆炸性的色情能量。如果你幸運的話，這種能量有時體現(xiàn)在性行為(與一個或多個人)中，但卻也是持久友誼、文化合作和政治組織的基礎(chǔ)。這就是今天LGBTQ新聞報道、酷兒小說、酷兒詩歌、酷兒藝術(shù)的開端。

毫不夸張地說，一種全新的酷兒想象力徹底改變了世界。

對酷兒人群來說，這種無限的熱情和能量對文化現(xiàn)狀、對“正常”的美國生活方式、對假定的異性戀政治的顛覆都是富有創(chuàng)造性的，也是一種對生活的肯定。

I joined the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) in New York weeks after the Stonewall upraising, when I was 20 years old. This was the start to my journey as a Queer activist, but Gay Liberation was the fourth social justice movement in which I was involved. In high school – encouraged by the liberal clergy in my Roman Catholic school – I participated in numerous Civil Rights marches in my home state of New Jersey. By senior year I was going on marches against the brutal American military actions in Vietnam. In 1967 – in college -- most of my women friends became radical feminists my views on sex, gender, and power were changed speaking with them and reading the feminist critiques that had radicalize social justice thought at this moment.

For me – and for almost everyone in immediately years of post-Stonewall organizing who were also involved in these movements – Gay Liberation was the logical next stop. This was a movement for expansive social and personal freedoms, basic constitutional rights, that was combating often deadly power-structures, and acknowledging the importance of sexuality and gender in everyone’s lives.

I was “out” before Stonewall – all of my friends knew I was gay – but the celebratory “l(fā)iberation” of the times was incredible. GLF meetings were a mixture heady political discussion – often using rhetorical concepts generated by the other movements – and enormous, exploding erotic energy. That energy sometimes – if you were lucky – resulted in a sexual action (with one or more people) but was also the basis for enduring friendships, cultural collaborations, and political organizing. This was the beginning of today’s LGBTQ press, queer novels, queer poetry, queer art, and – without exaggeration – a new queer imagination that radically changed the world.

This boundless enthusiasm and energy were as disruptive to the cultural status quo, the “normal” American way of life, the politics of presumed heterosexuality as it was creative and life-affirming for queer people.

龔鵬程教授：您的著作在記錄美國LBGTQ群體歷史發(fā)展方面發(fā)揮了重要作用。在您的《美國酷兒史》一書中，您提到“LGBTQ人群受隱瞞而不清楚自己的歷史是一種暴行和丑聞的揭示”。這是什么意思呢?

邁克爾·布朗斯基教授：是的，我引用了在《哈利·波特》系列中海格對哈利不知道自己的血統(tǒng)時說的一句話來引出這一點——而我認(rèn)為確實如此。

在過去的兩個世紀(jì)里，至少在美國，“歷史”—— 不管我們指的是什么——在記錄的過程中伴隨著各種假設(shè):只有重要的日期和事件；只圍繞著名人的傳記展開，且大多數(shù)是男性；人民的個人生活和情感對我們國家的發(fā)展沒有任何影響。大多數(shù)歷史學(xué)家都不關(guān)心種族、性別、性取向、情感和欲望等問題。像艾米莉·狄金森這樣對女人有性欲望的人，或者像沃爾特·惠特曼這樣有同性關(guān)系的人，他們的個人生活從未被探索過。這并不奇怪。

狄金森為女性寫情詩——她的性欲是其中不可或缺的一部分。命名和討論任何形式的性欲都是討論歷史的重要部分。

我在《美國酷兒史》中試圖做的并不是單單指出誰在歷史上體會到同性欲望——這只是第一步。更重要的是探索為什么這些欲望促使他們做出了一系列的行動，以及這些欲望如何影響歷史。

舉個例子:許多20世紀(jì)早期的女性發(fā)明了社會工作和公共衛(wèi)生的理念，她們愛著其他女性，并與其他女性生活在一起。

她們之所以能夠徹底改變美國的歷史和社會，正是因為她們沒有結(jié)婚(因此只能在家照顧孩子)，并得到了女性戀人和女性朋友極大的、甚至通常是非常公開的支持。

諷刺的是，我認(rèn)為我們所謂的酷兒美國歷史并不存在——它只是美國歷史。訣竅在于探索這段歷史的根源，深入檔案，找出人們之間更深層的故事;是誰在為多元性取向和性別群體的心理、情感的內(nèi)在生活、性欲帶來影響。

Yes, I do argue that in the book – using a quote by Hagrid from the Harry Potter series about Harry not knowing his heritage – and I think it is true. Over the last two centuries, at least in the United States, “history” – whatever we mean by that – has been written with many assumptions: it was just matter of important dates and events; it was structured around the biographies of notable people, most men; people’s personal lives and affections play no role in shaping how out country grew. Historians, for the most part, were unconcerned with issues of race, gender, sexuality, emotions, and desire. It is no surprise that the personal lives of people, such as Emily Dickinson, who had sexual desires for women or who, like Walt Whitman, actually had same-sex relationships were never explored. Dickinson wrote love poems to women – her sexuality is integral to that. Naming and discussing sexual desire – of any sort – is an important part of discussing history.

What I tried to do inA Queer History of the United States is not point out who, historically, experienced same-sex desires – that is only the first step. More important is to explore why these desires prompted them to do what they did and how that influenced history. An example: many, many early 20th century women who invented the idea of social work and public health were women who loved and lived with other women. They were able to radically change U.S. history and society precisely because they were not married (and thus confined to the home and childcare) and had the enormous, often very public, support of women lovers and friends.

Ironically, I’d argue that what we call queer American History does not exist – it is just American history. The trick is to explore the roots of this history, delve into the archives, and find out the deeper stories of the people; their psychologies, emotional inner-lives, sexual desires – of all sexual and gender varieties – who enabled it to happen.

龔鵬程教授：近年來，社交媒體和政治上出現(xiàn)了對酷兒理論的反對。有些人認(rèn)為，早期的大部分要求已經(jīng)得到滿足，LGBTQ權(quán)利運動現(xiàn)在正進入停滯期。也有人認(rèn)為酷兒理論已經(jīng)達到“政治正確”的地步，成為了壓迫“正常”人的霸權(quán)。您怎么看待這些趨勢？LGBTQ 權(quán)利運動的未來是什么？

邁克爾·布朗斯基教授：我認(rèn)為有個重點要牢記在心——即使我們從來沒有這樣細想過，但這是顯而易見的——那就是所有的理論、政治和行動主義(以及其他與此相關(guān)的一切)都處于一種不斷被評估的狀態(tài)。現(xiàn)在酷兒運動的目的和目標(biāo)與20年前或50年前已經(jīng)完全不同。

他們必須如此改變，因為世界已經(jīng)發(fā)生了巨大的變化。有些早期的戰(zhàn)斗已經(jīng)取得了勝利，有些則沒有。在這場尚未取得勝利的戰(zhàn)斗中，權(quán)利活動家將使用不同且更符合當(dāng)下的策略。政治現(xiàn)實總是在變換——往往是朝著更好的方向，但并非總是如此——社會正義的工作是永無止境的。既沒有停滯期，也沒有后酷兒世界。

酷兒理論——與酷兒政治有關(guān)，但又非常不同——也會隨著時間的推移而變化。正如我們對引力的理解比艾薩克·牛頓更復(fù)雜(盡管他基本上是對的)，當(dāng)人們今天討論酷兒理論時，它與30年前的討論大有不同。它更微妙，更復(fù)雜，而且在許多方面來看，也不那么學(xué)術(shù)，更容易理解。

這是否已經(jīng)成為“政治正確”的問題，在文化上是一個有趣的問題。然而，我認(rèn)為，從邏輯上和政治上來說，這都是一個錯誤的質(zhì)疑。從歷史上看，保守派一直使用“政治正確”一詞來反對他們不喜歡的想法。對“黑人的命也是命”的廣泛支持被人們歸類為“政治正確”，主流媒體尊重變性人的準(zhǔn)確稱呼被嘲笑為“政治正確”。

這樣的例子不勝枚舉。與其將新的政治信仰、社會習(xí)俗和行為斥為“政治正確”，不如問“這是思考這個話題的有效方式嗎?”、“為什么一個人或一群人會問其他人這個問題?”或“在這種情況下使用這詞是否有作用或有利于澄清語言？”。“政治正確”階段總是結(jié)束對話，永遠不會開啟有益的對話。

I think that important thing to keep in mind – and this is obvious, even though we never think this way – is thatall theory, politics, and activism (and everything else for that matter) is in a constant state of evaluation. The aims and goals of queer activism are now completely different than they were 20 years ago or 50 years ago. They have to be – the world has changed tremendously. Some of those early battles have been won, some have not. In fighting the battles still-to-be-won activists will use different tactics, more appropriate for today. Political realities are always changed – often for the better, but not always – and the work of social just is never done. There is no plateau, or post-queer world.

Queer theory – connected to queer politics, but very different – also changes over time. Just as we have more complicated understanding of gravity than Isaac Newton did (although he was basically right) when people discuss queer theory today it is very different than when it was being discussed three decades ago. It is more nuanced, more complex and – in many ways – less academic and more understandable.

The question of if this has become “political correct” is an interesting one culturally. I think, however, it is logically and politically the wrong question. Historically, the phase “politically correct” has been used by conservatives against ideas they do not like. Wide scale support for Black Lives Matter was categorized by people as being “politically correct,” the mainstream media’s respecting the accurate pronouns of transpeople was derided as “politically correct.” The list is endless. Rather than dismiss new political beliefs and social conventions and actions as “politically correct” it would be more useful to ask, “is this a useful way to think about the topic?” or “why might a person or group of people ask this of others?” or “would this be useful or clarifying language to use in this situation?” The phase “politically correct” always closes the conversation, it never opens to a useful dialogue.

龔鵬程教授：的書后，我不禁想到LBGTQ運動在美國比在世界其他地區(qū)取得的成就更卓越。例如，您提到很多初中和高中都有同志與非同志聯(lián)盟。什么是同志與非同志聯(lián)盟?能回顧一下這些聯(lián)盟的成功和挑戰(zhàn)嗎?

邁克爾·布朗斯基教授：如果美國是同性戀群體社會變革的先鋒那就太好了。唉，但事實并非如此。在LGBT人群的人權(quán)問題上，我們當(dāng)然比沙特阿拉伯或伊拉克要好得多，但與許多西方國家相比，無論是過去還是現(xiàn)在，我們都不是最領(lǐng)先的。

舉個簡單的例子:法國在1792年廢除了將同性活動定為犯罪的法律，英國在1967年廢除了這一法律——直到2003年，美國最高法院才裁定同性私下活動受憲法保護。清教傳統(tǒng)在多種方面塑造了美國人對性的態(tài)度。這種清教傳統(tǒng)在很大程度上已經(jīng)被極其保守的基督教福音教義所取代，而后者與共和黨的政治野心密不可分。

的確，很多學(xué)校——大多在東北和西海岸;而不是在南方——允許學(xué)生成立同志與非同志聯(lián)盟。這些社會團體或討論小組并不一定有公開的酷兒學(xué)生，但它們是為了向所有希望支持LGBTQ議題的學(xué)生提供支持。這些團體很重要，既可以挽救生命，也可以樹立平等和接納的榜樣。不能低估他們的社會和政治力量。隨著去年在多個州興起所謂的“不準(zhǔn)討論同性戀”法律，讓我們希望這些主要是在初中和高中的群體不要受到右翼政治力量的抨擊。

雖然美國在LGBTQ權(quán)利方面的記錄喜憂參半，但在通過流行文化和大眾媒體推廣LGBTQ的生活和體驗方面做得很好。現(xiàn)在，在許多電視節(jié)目、電影和許多產(chǎn)品的電視廣告中，都有公開的酷兒角色。酷兒可見性是一個受歡迎，并非常有用的教育工具，即使不算，也可以讓人們習(xí)慣這樣的想法，即LGBTQ 人存在，并且出現(xiàn)在情景喜劇也足夠正常。

然而，將可見性與平等權(quán)利或社會政策進步混為一談是錯誤的。迪斯尼頻道上出現(xiàn)公開的同性戀角色不會在反LGBT政策的中學(xué)走廊上保護公開的同性戀學(xué)生。酷兒可見性是酷兒解放進程中的重要一步，但可見性卻并不等同于自由或平等。

It would be lovely to think that the United States is in the vanguard of social change for queer people. Alas, this is not the case. We are certainly much better than say Saudi Arabia or Iraq on human rights for LGBT people, but this is not true – historically or in the present – in comparison to many western countries. Simple example: France repealed their laws criminalizing same-sex activity in 1792, England did in 1967 – it took the United States until 2003 for the Supreme Court to rule that same-sex activity in private was constitutionally protected. In multiple ways American’s Puritan heritage has shaped its attitudes to sexuality. This Puritan heritage has been, to a large degree, supplanted by deeply conservative Christian Evangelical teaching which inextricably tied to GOP political ambitions.

It is true that many schools – most often in the northeast and west coast; not the south – have allowed students to form Gay Straight Alliances. These are social groups or discussion groups that may or may not have openly queer students but are created to provide support for all students who want to support LGBTQ issues. These groups are important and can be life-saving as well as setting an example of equality and acceptance. It is impossible to underestimate their social and political power. With the rise of so-called “Don’t Say Gay” laws this past year in multiple states, let’s hope that these groups – mostly in middle school and high school – do not fall under attack by right-wing political forces.

While having a mixed record on LGBTQ rights, the United States has excelled in the promotion of LGBTQ lives and experience through popular culture and mass media. There are now openly queer characters in many television shows, in films, on TV commercials for a host of products. Queer visibility is a welcomed and very useful tool for educating people, if not you get them used to the idea that LGBTQ people exist and are normal enough to be on sit-coms. It is, however, a mistake to confuse visibility with equal rights or progressive social policies. Openly gay characters on the Disney Channel will not protect openly gay students in the hallways of middle schools with anti-LGBT policies. Queer visibility is an important step in the evolution of queer liberation but being visible is not the same as being free or being equal.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學(xué)博士，當(dāng)代著名學(xué)者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學(xué)、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設(shè)、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學(xué)于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展。現(xiàn)為中國孔子博物館名譽館長、美國龔鵬程基金會主席。