Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Saturday, November 30, 2013
feel that anger in our stomach
在像是空城般的紐約並且公寓擠爆的狀態下,以羊排和匈牙利雞和四種甜點作為壓軸和12+以上的女同志渡過了溫馨的friendsgiving。同一時間台灣正產生以護家為名的恐同十萬人遊行,並且竟然有年輕人打扮成納粹來宣示恐同的歷史正當性。即使隔著如此遙遠的物理距離,一早醒來我感覺宿醉般地頭痛做噁。我們總是那麼安逸地習慣於自己的小圈圈可以自在地分享兩百種同志的笑話和文化references,常常那麼容易忘記大多數的人真正看待我們的眼光,哪怕是在伴侶家人holiday聚會中對妳沈默的接納,工作面試時多看了妳穿著幾眼,過邊境海關時總是要擔心我該說我去找我女友好呢還是朋友似乎比較安全,焦慮明年是否還能跟伴侶待在同一個公寓同一座城市同一個國家。我們都太習慣想要自己負責一切,於是總是搶先幫別人的歧視找方法解決。我們換上不同的衣著、變換髮型、聚會迴避敏感話題、使用讓人覺得舒適的稱謂,不斷遷徙或者放棄遷徙的選擇。我們吞噬了所有人的焦慮和臆測並表達刻苦的善意,於是讓其他人覺得可以理直氣壯地以愛為名執行暴力。如果在美國的生活讓我學到什麼那必定就是憤怒的力量。去他的愛去他的理性去他的和平。和平的現況應該要使我們感覺前所未有的憤怒。
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
在這低靡悲劇性的政治環境之中至少妳還信仰愛情。
沒有辦法寫出什麼感性的字句我想我是被教書和論文的壓力給逼得太過緊繃。無論和朋友談論什麼都將回溯到我們越來越糟的教學環境和博士學位投資報酬率不等的荒謬性。系上昨晚才剛歡迎了一群一年級的新生,看著一個個充滿熱忱的新面孔積極地想要討教授歡喜,我和幾個較為憤世忌俗的學姊們在場外喝著紅酒,氣勢低靡地談論著系上教授間醜陋的八卦,誰和哪個學生上床,誰又聯合抵制了哪個有色人種的學生,誰用了指導學生的文章卻不讓對方掛名。其實關於學術領域的單純性或清高根本就是種自我安慰的鬼話,無論打著如左派如何進步的招牌,學術圈不過就像是任何為了營業率不擇手段的職場,而我們大多都是從來無法爬到較為舒服或穩定位置的廉價勞工。唯一個不同的是我們其中有著更大比例帶著天真幻覺的人們以為他們可以徒手改變世界。對於這部分,我是個傾向悲觀的實際主義者,毫不掩飾我對學術的懷疑。
而此刻我在曼哈頓中城學校附近唯一非企業連鎖能夠讓我感到稍許放鬆擁有良好髮型barista的espresso bar,讀著2005年Social Text期刊中的酷兒文獻備課,思考著我該如何在大學部的演講上從上週Foucault的後結構主義邁向從來無法準確定義的酷兒理論領域。才剛從酷兒理論學者Lisa Duggan關於新自由主義、同志常規(homonormative)慾望、帝國主義幻想的演講中離開,比對於整個昨晚新生酒會的氣勢低靡,覺得整個人除了仍是過於痠痛的肩頸外又終於重新活了過來。我對於具有物質和感情分析的酷兒理論是如此無法抗拒,彷彿是那完全替代了我曾經對於ecstasy的想望。想著如果我勢必被某種論文的枷鎖繼續糾纏個三年,那還不如做一些讓我快樂的事情。就當作是在這整個太過功力算計的學術圈中一點自私的反抗和歡愉。讓我至少在這尚未有被朝九晚五工作行程中的幾年,尚且自由地思想並飛行。沒有多久在咖啡廳中就遇到了將要defend她論文的J,簡單回味了一下上個冬天去以色列-巴勒斯坦那段太過突兀的旅程,想著時間飛速地過去。今天晚上就是2012美國總統大選的競選人辯論了。即使身邊左派的友人再也沒有人對歐巴馬有什麼不切實際的幻想,民主黨2008那年行銷過於厲害的"HOPE"海報仍深深烙在我的印象之中,不時讓我起了某種集體公眾情感的雞皮疙瘩。我對於選舉政治幾乎完全地冷感,但為了美國右派越來越加離譜的性別/身體政策感到焦慮而心底多少希望歐巴馬連任。這個世界的戰爭和一切悲劇卻只是變本加厲地進行著,身邊的朋友一個個因為經濟的負擔而不得已增加了學貸的額度,或者多了另一份工作而只剩下每天不到五小時的睡眠。在這樣的年代我們還能信仰什麼,我常常這麼問自己。那些千篇一律的遊行,Trotskyist社會主義組織令人反感的空洞政治口號,或者只為了增進自己學位而還無其他理想可言的假惺惺研究生"行動主義者",都讓我感到重度地憂鬱。想要連環性地抽煙。也許前禮拜芝加哥教師的集體大罷工讓我多了那麼些希望,或者不過就是這些時間隙縫中趁著酒精和香煙的集體發洩,那每個禮拜的女性馬克思討論會,讓我們不再感到孤獨。在這一切沒有系統分析下的政治鬧事之外,其實我最慶幸我還有妳。並如此信仰著愛。唯有在愛中我還能在這被急速企業化私有化的世界中,擁有那麼一絲自由的想望。
Friday, June 8, 2012
《其後》:生者之書。
真正認真地讀完了賴香吟的《其後》,對於我而言,這是一本書並不是關於邱妙津,而是關於一整個世代戲劇化的終結,以及歷史在每日生活中以平凡的姿態鬼祟地延續。就像賴的書寫手法一般,那麼平靜卻深沈的鋪陳。「清醒不是一個結論,也不相對於某些疾病,而是一整個世界的模樣。」她寫。我想關於死亡的最大痛苦,一直都不是關於「死亡」本身的戲劇性,而是生者所得面對的如往常搬同樣運轉著的世界。生者總是突然成了所屬世界的旁觀者,因為精神已寄於不同的時空,看著旁人的驚訝、憂愁、甚至是憤怒,都變成了脫離自我的演出。說什麼都太多餘,說什麼都不夠。「一切一切都只是表面。」大眾推測死亡的原因,但對於親近的生者,關於死亡的傾向,早不是在意識可預料之外。但在真正實踐死亡的「其後」,卻是一個茫然、不可預知、並且充滿著痛苦被不斷放大的現實世界。死亡的乾脆利落,不停地刺探著生存本質的意義。
「時代安靜的非常自私,沒有人對她伸出援手。」對於同志社群猜測、評論、分析著邱的死亡,讓我想到1993年被強暴並謀殺的跨性男/女同Brandon Teena。Brandon Teena暴力的死亡被拍成紀錄片、好萊塢電影《Boys Don't Cry》、無數的學術論文,甚至在LGBTQ社群中他的身份被不斷辯論,並宣稱為某個特定身份團體合格的政治主體「究竟他是男性化的女同志還是跨性男人?」「究竟Brandon Teena是屬於同志運動還是跨性運動?」在Lisa Duggan以美國後工業期經濟蕭條的鄉下作為主題,來分析關於BT的死亡,將恐同放置在突擊整個新自由主義襲擊下,中產階級工人失業率暴漲的緊張情勢中的不幸產物。於是BT的死亡不只是關於「未受教育的白人工人階級」或者是「恐同的農村」,而解釋了一整個時代的焦慮、矛盾、和不確定性。於是賴寫到:「時代安靜的非常自私,沒有人對她伸出援手。」邱的《鱷魚手記》中的掙扎,究竟是來自於時代壓抑下的同性情慾,或者是作者本身敏感纖細的感情思維?無從解答。但重點並不是將死亡套上運動的政治正確性,就如賴的書寫,真正需要被審視的是「其後」生者的生活。面對每日的,平凡且冗長的,生命。
還有多少死亡被安靜地遺忘了?賴寫到她的父親,曾說:「我渡過了平凡的一生⋯」錯過的,遺憾的,被整個時代放棄忽略的,於是成為生者長期的抗戰。抗爭為了不去重複死亡如此輕易並膚淺的面貌。因此書寫,反思,自癒,緘默。由此開始,《其後》平靜而深沈地構成一本,生者之書。
Thursday, October 14, 2010
衝刺。
好累。L剛搭車離開去機場,和家人在中國旅行兩個禮拜。這是我第一次一個人在這間公寓。突然覺得四周安靜的令人緊張,即使樓下新開的小展覽場還是有人拿著啤酒抽煙吵鬧。公寓間的任何行動彷彿靜止了。我開始想著這一個半月來的一切:在紐約的生活就像是燒紙一樣的快。瞬間我已經在自己製造出的濃煙之中,容易失去方向。也許生活是關於不斷地推動自己的極限--但那塊緩慢享受的一面呢?我剩下的娛樂是每天早晨在地鐵上完我iPhone裡的俄羅斯方塊十五分鐘,在繃緊神經的社會心理理論基礎課和教授對持前,在又喝了太多咖啡前,十五分鐘不用考慮下一步該怎麼走,該完成些甚麼。期中考要來臨了,一大堆文章要寫。我腦子裡卻只不斷想著L、北京、人民會場、和在這裡那些自殺的年輕同志男孩。
a blog post me and JOMO wrote in response to the recent anti-queer violence and gay marriage debate
The gay marriage debate has take over all the attention from the queer movement left and right. The right wing is consistently and stubbornly denying the existence of queer folks by saying that it’s an immoral choice of lifestyle. The liberal gay and lesbian organizations are continually pulling millions and millions of dollars to appeal to the state for marriage equality under the rhetoric of “we are all the same.” On the other hand, queer separatists are fiercely combating the liberals with the slogan: “we are totally and absolutely different from the heteros,” and have made good points on criticizing the oppressive patriarchal nature of the institution of marriage and how queers should not seek this type of inclusion (see: against equality). However, these critiques have not necessarily been able to generate an alternative grassroots movement which can seriously take on the demands of those queers who are marginalized--queer people of color, trans folks, working-class queers, queers with disabilities, and third world and immigrant queers--from all of the above approaches.
There has been a series of intolerable queer violence that occurred very recently in the country--torture, youth suicide, school bullying--while the violence is nothing new to queer folks, it is urgently calling for the communities’ response to these issues. Though the liberals are posting heartwarming videos and articles and holding vigils saying that “it gets better” (Dan Savage’s video), we know that the fight cannot end here. As oppressed folks we know that queer oppression does not end when we graduate from high school bullying and move to San Francisco and suddenly become successful professionals who hang out in fancy bars and overcome all of our internal and external conflicts. (QPOC’s responses to queer youth suicides: “It doesn’t get better. You get stronger” and “For colored boys that speak softly”) The liberals see gay marriage as the end of the queer struggle, and have this fantasy that if gay marriage was legal national-wide, then soon it would “trickle down” to the marginalized communities and thus end all queer oppression.
We know for a fact that the gay marriage demand alone is incapable of solving our problems of physical, psychological, and economic violence, but instead normalizes a different though limited type of family under capitalism. Criticizing the approach of marriage equality alone has not helped much with movement building either. The debate overall has clearly not been very productive so far, but instead, it has instigated so much anxiety among the queer communities--many politically conscious queers are having panic attacks just over the moral decisions of choosing to support and/or participate in gay marriage if they had the rights to do so. All this overwhelming anxiety around the gay marriage issue is exactly because that there has not been an alternative queer movement that can channel the energy, and this debate has been monopolized in the framework of “individual choice” and “individual freedom.” Under this liberal ideology, many queer folks think that, of course we should have the right as individuals to choose who we love, who we want to have sex, and who we want to have family with! If straight people do why can’t we?! While queer folks are absolutely discriminated against by the heterosexist state which should not be tolerated, seeking freedom under this individualist ideology has not gotten us too far. Instead of carving out a tiny gay space out of the small stream of bourgeois, legislative rights, can we imagine a kind of sexual freedom that is for all people? A kind of freedom where a single mom is able to bring up her child without feeling obligations to marry? A kind of freedom that no one would be restrained in pantyhose at work anymore? A kind of freedom that as a culture we are finally not tabooed to talk about sex, but does not idealize or professionalize it either? A kind of freedom that everyone would play with gender without shame, and a culture that no youth would commit suicide because of school bullying, or because they might just have a different sexual fantasy? A kind of place that no one would be afraid to walk the streets at night, where none of our body parts-- our brains or our genitals --are pathologized. A kind of freedom that is multifaceted, and does not merely carve out a different shape of box to fit in a particular sexuality, but opens up the possibility to more creative desires for everyday folks.
The mainstream gay movement today has hijacked the revolutionary sexual liberation movement in the 70s and turned it into a short-sighted individual rights agenda. They assume that every queer person has the same class position and desires the same kind of American Dream. Their answer to the queer working-class concern is that marriage can help poor folks get access to spousal benefits such as health insurance--which is fundamentally contradictory. For instance, many of our partners do not have health insurance in the first place because we do not have stable jobs or jobs that offer it in the first place. That said, the issue of gay marriage should not merely be decided by who participates in it. Rather, we should ask--who are the people controlling the movement? Whose voices are not heard? And, what is our alternative? While having equal rights can perhaps open up more space for our struggle, we cannot let the liberals such as the Human Rights Campaign and Democrats define our movement. We also cannot let the queer separatists defeat us and push us out of the struggle.
What we need is to build an issue-focused working-class movement that centers queer analysis. Our demands should cut across sexuality and gender lines, while fore-fronting and popularizing queer needs. We should demand universal health care that includes access to hormones, gender reassignment surgeries, and an anti-heterosexist health system that does not attempt to pathologize our queer bodies and erase the traumas we face in a violent homophobic society. We should demand asylum for all immigrants and not solely rely on the liberal, imperialist reform agenda such as the DREAM Act that attempts to draft the youth from our communities into the oppressive military system. These need to be our demands because we know that our fate as workers are bound up with the exploitation of the undocumented workers and the exploitation of youth of color. Today, anti-queer violence erodes our sense of community and leaves us feeling raw, vulnerable, and fearful for ours and our friends’ safety. This is a crucial time for queers and allies who distrust the state and the police to come together and mobilize from the grassroots to defend ourselves from homophobic violence. We should take the lesson from the initial domestic violence movement which set up grassroots phone trees, patrols, and shelters to challenge patriarchal violence in the households and in the streets.
Today, we need to resurrect this sense of grassroots unity that links our struggles together and not to rely on the compromised liberals and non-profits, or the homophobic, racist state institutions that divide and assault our communities.
When the gay liberal assimilationists say to middle-class straight folks, “we are just like you,” and the queer separatists on the other say “hell no we are nothing like you” and form their own blocs, we should be the force that says to every day folks who struggle that “we are just like you, and you are actually just like us”--because queer folks have always been part of the working-class and we are not fundementally different from one another. Our oppression as queers is not a fixed pathology. It is a product of the heteronormative, homophobic society, and it does not have to stay that way forever. In fact, the essence of queer liberation lies within the ability for everyone to celebrate and experiment their sexuality, gender, and desire. It is not enough to only carve out another limited category of acceptable sexuality for a certain group of people. This kind of change is not liberation--it is a very limited imagination of freedom. We need to start off with this fundamental vision of uniting the working-class and queer struggles and ensure that not any part of ourselves will be forced to compromise in the movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

