被隔離的時空。

教書之後我也開始重溫一晚喝紅酒一晚抽大麻的舊習。總是修改不完的講稿--我覺得微軟真的應該多創造不同種類六〇年代懷舊風的powerpoint主題，我已經厭倦了post-millennium的冰冷現代主義美學感。對於一個身為25歲身型相對來講渺小的亞裔大學講師，要如何塑造任何一絲權威幾乎是不可能的任務。我一個個濃妝或者發育比我良好的美國大學生總是叫著我"professor"，我於是回"wen"，然後他們說"professor wen"，在這一來一回的交談中我總擔心著被發現我不過就是個膺品，而在某方面我們又是那麼地相像--這群道地紐約小孩，各自帶著複雜的移民史或者階級歷程，相較於他們我甚至還是帶著某部份西岸的單純，我的學生比我更還了解都市貴族化的意義，或者"種族"以及"階級"這些抽象概念的複雜性。我和公立大學體制的愛恨關係，沒完沒了。在新疆做研究的人類學學者G來紐約參加研討會，我們聊著天，我們這麼容易地去批判一些同事liberal/reformist的學術作品或者所謂的"activism"，但是想想，我們又做了什麼呢？實踐什麼呢？2008年的工友爭鬥是一個相當物質性實在的運動，而那之後呢？不過是一些零星的遊行，研討會的報告，或者是工作之餘只剩下三分力氣的教育工作場所自主工人運動。我想，至少在這壓迫的新自由主義掌控下，我還有這一些小時，費盡心思的讓我的學生能有一個比較思想自由的學習空間。至少我還有這麼少許的分鐘，抵抗著資本的疏離。

panopticon

今天的女性心理是我最喜歡的題目：馬克斯女性主義。我讓學生讀Selma James' "Sex, Race, & Class" "Power of Women and the Subversion of Community"，充滿完全的熱誠，三十分鐘的Capitalism 101。學生睡的睡，一發不語。唯一發言的學生說：「資本主義代表著自由以及人權」。究竟是我的問題，還是這個世界的問題？我的學生們在餐飲業和服飾零售業打工，一個小時$7.5塊美金最低時薪，在紐約勉強殘喘生活，拼著一的大學學位所以能做一輩子的廉價勞工。身為非全職講師，我們一小時最多$10塊美金，心理學的行政部對於我們沒有任何責任制度或幫助，只有無盡的監督。這是一個Foucault所說的panopticon--學校的行政階級監督著我而我監督著你，權利在隱形的地方讓我們感到呼吸困能並且被永遠地囚禁。該如何掙脫這個惡性循環？自由的思想如何被肯定？我們的世界究竟差距那麼遠嗎？

我坐著六號地下鐵線逃離上東城的大學。一路上聽著washed out想著這真是一個糟透的世界。

身心俱疲。

(I am sexually frustrated...a great anxiety.)

好累。這一整個月。我感覺一部份的自己還在地中海邊緣的沙岸不想離開。而我的肉體必須完全投入物質的現實。教育組織、馬克斯讀書會、社工工人組織、三個研究計畫、三堂課、兩百五十個學生。心理系的管理部把我們唯有的小辦公室給拆除，改裝成為統計的助教室。我厭惡糟透的工作環境，逼迫我們服從資本主義模式的教學方法。擁有終身職的教授在我背後碎碎念：「妳的心理學理論呢？哼？」我想，對我而言，我的課程內所有的題目都和心理學有關，心理學並不只是實証主義者(positivist)眼中的無聊變數啊！我唯一期待的事物是晚上八點半回到家後完全地停止腦袋地運作。抽一些大麻，一杯紅酒。看著showtime的新影級想著「啊這真具有性別階級意識不如在課堂上放著片子省掉九十分鐘的演講！」或者週末在擠滿全城市酷兒的派對裡喝過多的酒精。感覺疲憊的並不是我的身體，而是用盡所有精神極力抗拒著服從這個壓迫體制讓我成為機械的可能。生命和爭鬥以及思想，無法分離。

it's easy to feel like a failure

I just finished a Psychology of Women class that attempted to interrogate the naturalization of "sex" and "body." I came out feeling confused--is it my teaching method that allow too much ambiguity or is the content itself is just so contested? My argument was simple--that sex is often used to end all conversations into biological determinism, but sex is in fact as social as the now acceptable understanding of gender as a social category. Not that it is not material--but the meanings of our physiology and biology were not "naturally produced" but were assigned by us--even genes or chromosomes, they are social things that interact with the environment and are much more complicated than indicators of "male" or "female."  We read narratives on intersexed experiences to think about the consequences of compulsory biological binary. I think the students got it. But we are still struggle through--as one student asked at the end of the class asked: "so do you think genitals determine our gender or hormones?" "do you think intersexed people should just go into the world confused about their gender?" Many students responded and argue against it. But it's easy to feel like a failure, like nothing you said was communicated across the table. I am trying to think I am not the one who is "providing" the content of knowledge, but really, to pass on critical analytical tools to the students. It is always not about what "the issue" is--that whether the differences between "men" and "women" are a result of nature or nurture--but why we are asking this question? Why we have such compulsion to rectify the category of gender as if it is true, and the only truth? It is indeed a political position we are taking we are asking such question--as the ones with legitimate science and statistics were the architects of our social experiences. Okay I need a drink.