文明及其嬌貴：全球治理年代的感性政治兼回應霍米巴巴

（2010年12月18日我受邀參與在上海美術館舉辦的「西天與中土：印中社會思想對話」座談，並針對美國哈佛大學後殖民研究理論大師Homi Bhabha的演講「Barbarism and Civility: Thoughts on the Culture of Globalization」做出回應。我的回應後來就寫成了〈文明及其嬌貴：全球治理年代的感性政治兼回應霍米巴巴〉，《從西天到中土：印中社會思想對話》，張頌仁、陳光興、高士民主編，上海：上海人民出版社，2014年。331-342。引用本文準確頁碼可參見下方原文發表時的pdf檔。）

主持人，許江：

下面先請何春蕤女士發言，她的對話的題目是「文明及其嬌貴–全球治理年代的感性政治」。這四位先生每個人宣講自己的觀點和文章20分鐘，然後提一些問題進行對話，就當場請霍米.巴巴進行對話。

何春蕤：

大家好，很高興來到上海。今天下午霍米．巴巴先生針對野蠻與文明之間無休止的重複和辯證關係提出了頗為豐富的解析，在文明與野蠻這兩個名詞之間，我比較關心的是此刻全球各國積極角力、競爭高下的「文明」形象，我認為這個對文明的高抬和看重已經帶來了一些很值得關注的後果，因此我想從一個不太一樣的角度來提供一些觀察和思考。霍米．巴巴先生談的脈絡是「全球化」，我想談的則是「全球治理」，全球治理指的是20世紀晚期開始明顯出台的治理形式，這種治理不再以國家的暴力和規範為主要的統治力量，而是以國際組織、民間組織等等組合形式所形成的共識或價值觀作為權威和規範的來源；而且基本上不是透過一般政治層次上的操作，相反的，其中有非常強的情感操作。這個情感的成分，我把它稱為「感性的政治」。我就想透過「文明」這個話題來談談在全球治理的年代這個治理是透過什麼樣的方式來進行，而這裡面的情感的成分是怎麼樣操作的。由於我來自於台灣，很多的例子當然就是台灣的，有一些例子大家可能會不熟悉，沒關係，最主要是聽聽我想講的基本立論是什麼。

看到這一場的中文題目「野蠻與文明」的時候，我相信很多人會以為這個題目的第二個名詞──「文明」──就是我們所熟悉的所謂人類文化遺產的綜合，也就是英文字civilization。不過，看到Bahbha教授使用的原文是civility，也翻譯成文明這個字的時候，我感到十分興奮，因為這正是我這幾年覺得很受啟發的一個概念。小小遺憾的是，有關野蠻和文明的討論多半還是以民族國家（nation-state）作為框架。在民族國家的框架之內思考例如難民問題（refugees）、無國人士問題（the stateless）、離散問題（diaspora）、甚至記憶的問題（memory）的時候，即使是跨國的佈局也預設了民族國家的格局和層次，無法埋藏和國族相關的情緒情感。然而在全球化（globalization）所帶動的全球治理（global governance）之下，權力（power）的操作模式並不只限於國家、民族、戰爭、國界、身份等等；事實上，文明（civility）近年來在日常生活、親密關係、社會控制（social control）上的積極變化角色恐怕更需要我們敏銳的追蹤和理解，更何況這樣的一個積極變化是以全球作為場域，混雜了各種在地的與全球的權力慾望，揉合了各種主文化、亞文化之間的競爭與傾軋。今天下午在有限的時間裡，我就想從後面這些看起來好像和政治沒多大關係的角度，來說說最近5年台灣出現的一些以文明civility為根本慾望動力的立法執法現象，我認為這些法治正在默默的改變台灣的社會氛圍，很根本的建構起一個不再需要傳統政治強權也能達成全面統治的社會整體。

讓我從很明顯的一個現象說起。最近幾年，台灣人在說話上好像越來越講究文明，公眾人物在公共空間裡爆粗口、講髒話，會引起強烈的反感，會被全民圍剿，會被痛罵是壞榜樣；就連一般普通人也越來越不容忍任何公開的敵意表達和辱罵。一時間，好像全民都熱切的要求文明的互動，不再容忍言語上的粗魯，而這種不容忍也反映在法院越來越多和辱罵相關的判刑案例。例如，一位陸軍上尉公開辱罵女兵與其長官是「姦夫淫婦」，被女兵控告，高等軍事法院判決是「公然侮辱」，處有期徒刑六個月；台中市一位男子因土地問題與鄰居發生糾紛，罵對方「比毒奶還毒」，當時剛好是大陸三鹿牌毒奶粉事件，鄰居認為這個言論貶損其社會地位而提告，高等法院依公然侮辱罪判處拘役20天，可以易科罰金，繳錢了事。一位國中老師在操場當著全校學生面，透過麥克風訓誡一名常遲到的學生說：「你是遲到大王，可以列入金氏世界紀錄」，結果被學生家長告，判拘役50天。這一兩年，各種各樣因罵人而上法院的官司層出不窮，現在各種罵人的話都不能隨便出口了：罵人「看門狗」，罰7500；罵人「王八蛋」，判賠1萬；罵人家「為非作歹」「四處揩油」，判拘役10日；大學助教罵一個不會選課的學生是「豬」，補習班老闆罵主任「胖胖醜醜像豬」，都判賠兩萬五人民幣；罵人「土匪」，判拘役25天；罵別人「勾引人家老公」，判賠7萬；罵鄰居是「瘋女人」，判拘役45天。

不文明的話語就連在網絡上都不能隨便寫。有人生意失敗後在網絡上說合夥人是「貪婪的惡魔」、「披羊皮的狼露出猙獰面孔」，判賠5000元人民幣；大學生在網絡上罵過去的女友「下賤」「賤女人」，判拘役40天；男選手在網絡上罵女選手「精神有問題」、「保持安全距離，以免被告性騷擾」，判拘役40天；老師在網絡上罵同事是「瘋母狗」「黑心老師」，判拘役40天。教授在網絡上罵系主任「黑幫成員」，遭判拘役20天，系主任餘怒未消，回文罵教授「居心歹毒」，判拘役50天。買家在拍賣網站上留下負面評價，賣家則到買家網頁留言「您應該是外表長相像恐龍，內心修養更像恐龍的人」，被判拘役50天。就連網絡上很常見的、用不同身份留言製造多人留言罵同一人的印象，例如有人在別人的部落格上留言「你真的很騷貨、賤女人」、「同意樓上說的，她超賤的」、「哇，好多人留言，這女人好噁心」等，以不同的語氣，互相贊同，營造不同人留言的感覺，最後被判拘役59天。最扯的就是在網絡上連隨意起哄也不行了，有人在親子網站上自述懷孕時遭丈夫背叛、離婚，不少媽媽義憤填膺，人肉搜索找出前夫及外遇女的部落格，留言痛罵「歪嘴的第三者」、「真的長得好醜」等，後來接到法院傳票被告妨害名譽，最後一人賠兩百人民幣道歉。

值得我們注意的是，這些話語其實都是我們在日常生活中常常遇到甚至自己都使用過的，過去我們也覺得沒什麼，就是發洩情緒、發表評論而已，但是現在越來越多人把這種話語拉上法院，而法院也相應判了蠻重的懲罰。這樣一個變化就使得這些話語或者使用這些話語有了新的社會意義。這些案例在過去五年內以倍數增加，也得到媒體的聚光報導，其中所反映的現象和默默產生的社會效應很值得我們思考：

第一，隨著台灣經濟實力起飛所形成的國族自信，台灣人在情感上越來越被鼓勵自覺嬌貴，形成一種不能挫折、不能羞辱、不能碰觸的自我感覺。近年這些官司的示範作用則暗示，負面的響應或評價會對主體造成極大的情感衝擊，因此不能放過任何言語的辱罵；然而這也表示，人們逐漸習慣於無力自行協商處理人際的不和，因此一罵就打官司，由司法來追究到底。這種看似文明（也就是不正面衝突）的處理方式逐漸把更多的權力讓渡給法院，而法院的權威仲裁則逐漸建立起「文明語言」「文明互動」的「絕對」標準來：「公然侮辱」和「妨害名譽」變成人際互動的禁區，越來越多語詞用字以及這些語詞用字背後常見的侵略、侮辱、爭戰等慾望衝動都被放逐到壓抑之地，再也不能流露出來。但是這樣就消除了那些慾望所源出的社會矛盾和個人衝突嗎？在官司風潮影響之下，原本用對話、論辯、筆戰所進行的人際互動，現在改為打官司，由法院來制裁，這豈不扼殺了人民彼此協商的能力和空間？

第二，這類案件逐日增多的同時，台灣的民粹主義氛圍也開始滲透司法，對法院的態度施加新的壓力。我們近年來看到越來越多保守團體連手高調的針對特定案件提出嚴厲的道德判決，在還沒有宣判之前，保守派就先出來說這個案子應該怎麼怎麼判才「合乎民眾的期望」，媒體所配合的聚光報導則使得法院越來越感覺需要呼應社會義憤，做出符合民粹意見的判決，否則就會被罵成過時的「恐龍」法官，或者會被新設立的法官評鑒制度挑出來檢視。在這種民粹壓力下，司法很難堅持「依法」判決，而必須「參考」民意以及輿論所表達出來的所謂文明標準和正義規範。然而這些民意和輿論多半只反映了被保守團體所煽動的報復型道德正義感或是面對新興現象而生的焦慮恐懼，因此也對司法的公正形成極大的攪擾。在去年轟動社會的「白玫瑰運動」事件中，保守團體就駕馭著強烈情感的正義要求，以「文明之名」嚴重的壓縮司法空間，使得法律成為道德的劊子手。

第三，這類案件爆出來的時候，媒體的評論通常都會提出同一個沒人可以反對的說法，那就是：不能容忍這種不文明的行為存在，因為不能讓這種不良示範教壞小孩。過去成人與孩子的生活融在一起，孩子分享成人的世界和活動，並沒有太多區別，現在則越來越被要求要區分清楚。例如小孩的閱聽材料需要分及隔絕，小孩不能太早開始打工，底層父母擺攤不能帶著小孩在旁邊幫忙等等，越來越多成人的生活空間不能讓孩子分享等等。據說孩子需要一個純淨的生活環境才能有最好的成長條件，因此成人被強烈要求要嚴謹克制自己，以便打造這個純淨環境。剛好我們現在又面對了一個少子化越來越嚴重、代間關係急劇變化、教育越來越難執行的時代，「教壞小孩」的罪名很容易就喚醒了人們的焦慮，構成極大的社會壓力，成人也越來越自慚於許多過去做得很上手的成人行為（從喝酒到吸煙到色情到性愛）。這樣的文明化趨勢於是和當下以保護兒童之名所推動的淨化社會運動順暢的合流起來。

在這裡我必須回頭講一下我對文明（civility）的一些體認，以便更清楚的說明它在我今天這個發話框架裡的含意。我對文明的體認主要是來自猶太裔社會學家Norbert Elias所寫的《文明的進程》（The Civilizing Process），特別是他分析中世紀以降，失勢的貴族階層和新興的資產階層如何在宮廷社會裡透過新禮貌文化和嬌貴氣質進行相互競爭，也以文明來闡釋自我的階級優勢，為逐漸鞏固的君主統一政權準備了平和自製的公民主體。不過我關注的倒不是那段歷史，而是在那個文明化過程中被逐步內化了的情感結構，它使得主體一方面越來越敏銳的顧忌別人的評斷目光，另方面也「自然」的對特定事物十分嬌貴的感到羞恥、難堪：看見污穢就掩起鼻子、別過頭去，面對性愛場面就表示羞恥噁心，任何不文明的景象據說都會使這樣的主體受到震動驚嚇。如果你在台灣看電視新聞節目，不時就會聽到播報員說某某景象「嚇壞了」群眾，這樣非常戲劇化的描述其實都會暗示主體應該擁有某種嬌貴感（很容易被嚇壞），這也使得人們逐漸養成敏感的注意力，時時都要小心避開特定事物或舉止，甚至連聽到、想到它們都不行。

如果文明只是消極的迴避某些場景或東西，或者只是某個階級構成它自我的符號元素，那也就算了，但是這個新的感性（sensibility）──這個被建構出來的容易羞恥、難堪、不安、受驚、激動的情感結構──如果被動員起來，積極的借用政府法律的力量，強勢的要求排除任何可能驚動它的一切，這就形成了淨化社會、排除異己的力道了。

舉個例子來說，在台灣，婦女團體推動設置的反性騷擾法律原本是要保障婦女在職場中的平等地位，創造對女性友善的安全環境，然而在立法過程中卻被各種婦女團體和國家女性主義者（state-feminists）大力建構並強化女性的情感嬌貴形象，以要求最強勢的性騷擾防治，也鼓勵女性隨時訴求這樣的法律。結果你在我面前講了一個黃色笑話，我覺得不舒服，就可以去告你性騷擾；你穿著緊身運動褲在我面前經過，跨下的突出讓我覺得不舒服，又可以告你性騷擾；或者你盯著我看，我覺得不舒服，也可以告你性騷擾；最近還有新聞說一個小六男學生聞了聞女同學的頭髮說很香，結果也被視為性騷擾。這個越來越流行而普遍的「不舒服」感（discomfort）於是形成了新的情感門坎（threshold of affect），逐漸改造女性的人格情操，徵召她們成為巡邏淨化社會空間的強大力量，一個有著法律作為後盾的力量。結果過去被當成粗魯的（rude）、沒品的（bad taste）、不雅的（indecency）、不懂禮貌的（impolite）所有不文明的語言或舉止動作，現在都被當成觸犯法律的行為，隨時可以提起訴訟，而且很快就被嚴峻處理。文明與否，變成了法律上場與否的判准。

很明顯的，最主要承擔這個情感門坎守門員位置的就是此刻在被建構中的現代女性：作為文明化進程中熱切希望透過品味和風格來提升社會位置的主體，女人對不文明的語言和行為往往表示非常敏感、全面抵抗、嚴正打擊。特別是，由於女性還被視為天生母職，所以對於可能影響兒童、帶壞小孩的一切都感覺有義憤應該大力消滅。要是有女性面對這些場景竟然沒感覺、不響應，那就是不負責任、是「被父權意識形態洗了腦」，墮落了。值得注意的是，這裡被建構起來的女人和女人的情感，明顯只代表了某種階級的女性和她們表達其階級位置時所展現的情感。

從以上分析來想，或許各位已經聽出我想要講的重點。我想說的是，與現代化同時誕生的文明──civility已經廣泛的深植在今日的日常生活裡，在各種生活規範習俗中，而且構成了家庭教養、學校教育、社會教育的重要內涵，構成了我們很多人自我形象和對他人評價的基準，也給予我們彼此禮貌相待和平共處的可能。然而我們也不能忽略，文明（civility）在特定的社會脈絡中正在扮演比教化更為暴力的角色，像性別主流化（gender mainstreaming）那樣全面的完備化法律條文和執法（legal codification and enforcement），就已經在很多方面使得文明不再是品味、儀態、禮貌、高下差異而已，而更是透過司法來進行的、義正詞嚴的排斥和隔離和懲罰。只要不符合當下的主流文明規範，許多日常生活行為都被視為「不文明」（incivility）──從吐痰，到衣著不整，到沒有讓座老幼婦孺，到盯著女人看，到隨地大小便──並且更一步一步隨著人們的感情趨向嬌貴敏感而越來越被敵視，最後被直接納入「不合法」（illegality），由新的立法來處理。不幸落在司法之下的主體當然付上極大的代價，但是沒沾到邊的大多數主體也潛移默化的學會不再自在的隨意的生活，而必須時時警惕，處處自制。

在這裡我還必須指出，新興民主政體中所出現的這種「文明化」動力，與冷戰結束以來的國際關係結構變化息息相關。今天巴巴教授的演講討論的是「全球化文化」，我在這裡討論的脈絡則是那個積極為全球化開路並管理秩序的「全球治理」（global governance）。後冷戰的國際關係已經不是只有國家政府可以做玩家而已，跨政府組織（如聯合國UN、世界衛生組織WHO、世界銀行World Bank、世界貿易組織WTO等）、各種層次大小的非政府組織（NGO）、跨國企業（MNC）、以及各國家政府，透過結盟協商納入以及排擠，漸漸形成一個複雜變通的互動牽制網絡，以此構成國際協議的基礎。聯合國「全球治理委員會」（Commission on Global Governance）就曾明確的呼籲，建立一個「全球公民倫理」（global civic ethic），以「一組核心的價值」來團結所有不同文化、政治、宗教、或哲學背景的民族。姑且不論這套全球適用的（global）價值有多少成份必然預先排除了許許多多邊緣的（marginal）、污名的（stigmatized）、困難的（difficult）東西；至少在台灣的現實裡，在地的（local）操作往往只是更加的強化最主流的、最霸權的、最理直氣壯的教條，並且透過主流化的力道，不斷生產出自命正當正義、同時卻十分嬌貴脆弱的公民主體。在她們手中，巴巴教授在演講中再三呼籲的「倫理的惕勵」（ethical vigilance），很容易就被變形扭曲成為最簡化的「道德的惕勵」（moral vigilance），並且不斷煽動各種熱烈的性恐慌以便推動建立更多的立法規範。

或許我們可以從文明（civility）的反面來思考我在這裡想要說的。牛津辭典將不文明（incivility）定義為「粗魯而不合群的行為」（rude and unsociable behavior），不管是「粗魯」或「不合群」，兩者都預設了人與人之間的互動「必須」合乎社群主流的觀感和相應設置的常規。這個「合乎社群」的要求，透露了文明化、主流化的強制性內涵，而在全球治理以及積極保守份子的操作下，邊緣的、非主流的、不入流的，都在這個架構之內變成需要被嚴正處置或徹底放逐的東西。

巴巴教授在演講中多次提到「文明的野蠻性」，或許我所提供的就是更進一步的說明：這樣的野蠻性現在正如何以文明之名、以司法為骨，建立起對文化異類的正當壓迫。這也是我們在面對全球化之下的文明（civility）新操作模式時不得不思考的面向。謝謝。

Prof. Bhabha:

Thank you, thank you very much for your comment. It』s very interesting to hear about Taiwan and this new kind of new Puritanism which I didn』t know about. When I was in Taiwan, one of the things that surprised me was the betel nut women and I didn』t understand what on Earth was going on because I was driving to different campuses. These women dressed in negligees were coming out to sell Beatle-nuts and initially I couldn』t understand. Was this some sort of sex thing or it wasn』t? But I was reassured they weren』t, they were actually selling betel nut. I thought why do they have to wear lingerie to sell betel nuts? Well I was told it was the tradition. I thought it was pretty liberating, these women were not to be read as being in the sex-trade at all. They were selling betel nuts dressed in lingerie. So I』m disappointed to realize there』s this new Puritanism in Taiwan.

何春蕤:

「Lingerie has been outlawed from the betel nut stands.」性感睡衣已經被禁止在檳榔攤出現了。

Prof. Bhabha:

Oh dear, I haven』t been there recently. I think this would made things much less interesting. Let me just say a few things. One I don』t agree statelessness, migrations, refugees, genocide all the issues that I talked about as being part of the other side of civility are indeed national issues, because in a way they are profoundly trans-national. To be a refugee means you have been expelled, the whole status of refugee is wholly controlled forms of international laws so this is not issues of national jurisdiction, but issues of international jurisdiction. Even the settlement of refugees in countries is only partially a national issue. So I would just like to clarify that all those issues I talked about are indeed issues of global governance or global mis-governance, they』re global movements. Now the issues that I don』t understand, just simply don』t understand the basis on which the kinds of things you』ve mentioned, you know the one where one neighbor screams at another and that becomes a legal issue, I just don』t know the whole process. I think that after this session is over we can have a discussion. Of course as you know, in the United States there was a hate speech movement and a number of my very close friends have written at great length about hate speech. It』s difficult, all these are matters of degree. The examples you give of someone in Parliament calling another person a filthy dog or a stray cat or a rabid cow, in India this happens all the time in the Parliament and you have people jump from one end to the other and beat up the other person. And you know I』m not suggesting that that』s the way Parliamentary debate should take place but it doesn』t create the same issue. What I think about the issues that you』ve raised, a very significant issue, is something in my work I take very seriously, which is the notion of effect on politics. People are so obsessed with the notion of political rationality that the whole nature of effect on politics is often dissent. This is something I take very seriously, but not in these instances. But I think that』s a very important point and how to create a kind of equitable, legal instrument to deal with effective violations is an open question but an important one. When I talked about civility I was not talking about at all in the context of is it good manners or good customers. That』s why I talked about the ethics instead of normative morality and that』s why I stress my issue was really the ethical nature. My notion of civility was much more embedded in the concept of civil society and when it』s embedded in the concept of civil society then you begin to understand all the examples I gave very much came out of civil society, that』s why I talked about citizenship or governance of that kind. Not only citizenship but also the civil treatment of aliens is extremely important. So thereby I think we』ll be talking about something rather different where civility in your sense, you』re quite right, is deeply part of bourgeois moral norms that』s why you have gender mainstreaming or that』s why you can have certain class-based misrepresentations of people based on how they speak. For example the accent they have. England is of course a very important country for this. If you pronounce the English language in a certain way you』re immediately considered to either be part of a much less educated group, you can lose a job, or you can not be interviewed. You know so that concept, I accept. It』s my understanding in the kind of ambivalence that had more to do with civil society and civil society as the center. I think as globalization becomes more important, the more important civil society becomes because I believe without that notion of civil society, it』s very difficult to create judicial and ethical norms on an ethically global level. I think it becomes very difficult. So I think civil society with everything it encounters, civil society after all is not about consensus. It』s about the management of dissent and how you deal with it as I said in my lecture. Civil society is not about the majority, it is very sensitive to how you can have groups that are asymmetrical and you how are able to think about that and include that in some sense of commonality. Civil society is often, it protects the best things of the state and it is the most critical about the nation state itself. Civil society is in my view important, because very often when the state comes down on people, the organizations of civil society are the ones that fight back against the state.

何春蕤：

「Can I respond to that?」 我可以做一點回應嗎？

Prof. Bhabha:

「Sure」

何春蕤:

While you place great value on the existence of the civil society, I must remind you that all these things, all these conservative legislations that just came into place in Taiwan in the name of civility, were all instituted with the help of certain conservative civil society organizations.  In other words, civil society can no longer be treated as a unified beneficent whole. 您可能認為公民社會的存在有著極為重要的價值，但是我也必須提醒，我剛才提到的那些事情，那些在台灣以「文明之名」而設置的保守新法規，都是某些保守的公民社會團體所積極推動的。換句話說，公民社會再也不能被當成一個統一的善意整體。

Prof. Bhabha:

That maybe so in Taiwan, but I』m not talking about Taiwan. I』m talking about the concept of civil society. If civil society imprisons people for neighborhood disputes, then there』s something very wrong within those civil institutions. Because what they should be doing is saying nobody likes to be abused and live next to abusive neighbors. I know from my own personal experience that living next to an abusive neighbor may seem like a very small thing but everyday to go home and feel that there is somebody living next to you who doesn』t have your well-being in mind is a very undermining thing, it』s not a very small thing. But there have to be ways of dealing with this, I think they should be dealt with, there should be groups or formations to deal with it. But you know there are abuses of all sorts of systems. We know Communism systems which abused Marx. We know liberal systems that abused the ideas of John Stewart Mill. That doesn』t mean we can』t make a distinction between the two. So I think civil society is a very convenient way of defending yourself from the excesses of the state while maintaining as best you can the best things about communal life. Finally I』d like to say the issue of global governance is something I』m very interested in and the impetus of the book and the paper has something very much to do with it. Unfortunately I think something that those who are even in the leadership of global governance recognize that global governance is a great aspiration but often it doesn』t have the teeth the International Criminal Court does not have the teeth to arrest people as we』ve seen. The UN, which is the main international architecture, cannot budge because in the Security Council, people will not vote for it. So I think the idea as I cherish it too of global governance is extremely important but on the other hand at the moment we have to acknowledge its weakness. We have to do everything we can to strengthen it and I believe what is now called international society, NGOs, etc. can actually strengthen it. I come from India originally, a country where there』s a huge NGO culture but one of the leading journalists wrote a good book called Every NGO Loves a Good Family. As much as I come from a culture of support human rights, I think you have to think about what』s happening in governance where there』re so many NGOs. Often in a state many of them have funding bodies, how we actually also have some sort of supervision and regulation around NGOs is actually very important, and I don』t think we have very effective regulations of NGOs party because it』s so liberating to feel that people are so idealistic who would put their money into Pushrah??? It is so enlightening to feel that. But I think it comes at a certain cost and if you want to strengthen it as I do international civil societies I think the important thing is to be realistic about where it is and what it is doing.

何春蕤：

「Maybe that』s one of the differences between us: I do not wish to strengthen the global civil society because I have seen global society eating itself up by joining hands with the government in creating more legislations to act as forms of social control.    To posit civil society as a necessarily progressive democratic force against authoritarian or totalitarian state power overlooks the unequal power within the civil society and the exclusive effect of 「civility」 or 「citizenship.」  Civil society is neither neutral nor innocent in power; in fact, the rise of powerful NGOs collaborating with the state has led to policies that work against immigrants or sexual-marginals.  The Christian conservative groups, very big NGOs, are now pushing for abstinence education in China and very conservative legislation in Taiwan. So I think when we talk about the term 「civil society,」 we need to put that term on the question stand.」 可能這就是你我立場的差異之一，我並不想強化所謂的全球公民社會，因為我已經在台灣親眼見到全球公民社會與政府連手製造更多嚴厲的新法規作為社會控制的手段。如果我們認定公民團體必然會是一個對抗威權極權政府的進步民主力量，那就表示我們忽略了公民社會內部存在的權力不平等，以及像「文明」和「公民身份」這些概念所具有的排他性。公民社會在權力上並不是中立或純潔的，目前許多大型的非政府組織正在和國家政府合作，制定對移民或性邊緣少數人士不利的政策﹔保守的大型基督教團體也在中國推動守貞教育，在台灣推動各種保守的立法。所以我覺得說到公民社會這個概念的時候，我們真的需要把這個名詞放在檢驗台上。

Prof. Bhabha:

「It depends on what you say, sure if they are collusive with the state, which is exactly what a civil society is not meant to doing, and my concept of civil society is very much based on Groundchief』s ???? work, a civil society is not meant to be co-opted by the state, then it is no longer playing a critical role of civil society. But I think the fundamental difference made between us maybe that I do believe in some sort of democratic representative regulation. I believe that alterity itself has a regulatory mode. It is not just the proliferation of otherness. To me the proliferation of otherness loses its power. The whole point is how to use otherness or alterity or self-alienation or self questioning to make an intervention. So I think that maybe the difference, a civil society not functioning as a civil society is no longer a civil society. It is something else, it maybe a corrupt one, or a decadent one, or a corrupt one. Of course if it colludes with the national government then clearly it』s not playing its role. I think the whole issue of politics and you can use it as true of Communism or Democracy or Liberalism is to see how it』s balanced. It』s a work in progress. Just because you have Democratic institutions, that doesn』t mean you have Democracy. Just because you have voted that doesn』t mean you have Democracy. In India we know this, today in the global world, it makes so much profit to be gained from India, that it makes people talk about India as the greatest Democracy. Yes, formal Democracy is different from real Democracy. Formally India is a democracy and yes it had great moments when Mrs. Gandhi lost her seat because she imposed a totalitarian rule. It』s easy for Western and other countries to say India is a great Democracy, however, when you put it under a microscope and look at the roles of the everyday people, look at the people whose sexual choices are different. When you see that and the level of corruption, when you see the level of police intervention, when you think of Kashmir, there are more military personnel there than there have ever been. Then you can see people celebrate other people』s democracies because it suits them financially so I believe that all these issues continually have to be critiqued. That』s why I talked about ethical and political vigilance, we cannot just leave it to formal institutions. That』s the true role of civil societies.

何春蕤：

「I guess you are using the term civil society mostly as a normative term: what it should be like, rather than focusing on what it really does in actual social conditions.  I also have problem with the term you used, 『democratic representative regulation.』  Representation itself entails exclusivity (who are to be represented? Who can represent who?)  And democracy, as a structure formed in historical process, often affirms existing distributions of power.  These are all problematic, and, who』s going to design and impose regulation anyway?  How do we keep it from becoming another populist demonstration of 『majority rules』?  我覺得您可能主要是把公民社會當成一個規範性的語詞來使用，您關注的是它「應該」是如何，而不是具體去看它在不同的社會脈絡中到底如何操作。我對您所說的「民主的代議式管制」概念也有保留，因為代議本身就牽涉到排他（誰可以被代表？誰代表誰？），而在歷史過程中形成的民主也往往預設了已經存在的權力分配狀態。這些都是有問題的，再說，誰來設計並執行管制呢？我們要怎樣避免它淪落成為另一個民粹主義肯定「多數意見就是王道」的場域呢？

Prof. Bhabha:

「If you do not have a system of representation and regulation, the best you can have. Then you just basically leave it to how individuals or groups would interpret for themselves what they should be doing, and I don』t think that』s a satisfactory issue. I think you should have as rigorous, as generous, as democratic forms of regulation as you can have. But I don』t think unregulated economies or unregulated societies or indeed unregulated groups are the best way to think about it. That』s the real issue: how do you create regulation that is equitable and yet function. I think that』s really the problem of politics. Thank you very much.

主持人，許江：

非常感謝何春蕤的對話，我覺得她很感性地描繪了一個我看來是十分生動的一個今日社會，我覺得在這個裡頭，國家和大眾之間和平相處精神文明之類的東西，還是通過法律的方式來推進，在這個裡頭她提出了這樣一種對於文化化、主流化強制的內涵之下所掩蓋的對於邊緣的，非主流的不入流的東西的一種野蠻的對待。霍米．巴巴教授我覺得他還是非常明晰地提出了他的觀點和這個之間的不同，他所提倡的公民社會，他所講的全球治理和這個不同。不管怎麼樣，我到台灣一個很重要的經驗，我覺得台灣人特別懂禮貌，因為我會聽閩南話，所以我覺得跟台灣人接觸不感覺到他們會罵贓口。

何春蕤：

如果文明只是互動禮貌，我也沒問題。可是當越來越多事情落入法律條文規範之下，那就使得原本可以在文化層次上相互討論和辯論的空間消失了。今天如果我們在台灣想要談一個爭議的話題，好比性工作，如果要持一個比較支持性工作者的立場，這樣的言論就不能上網，因為〈兒少性交易防制條例〉這個法律根本就限制這樣的言論在網絡上流通，說是要防範兒少進入性工作。從這個例子就看到，和主流不同的意見很容易就會受到限制，而在從前，不同的意見可以寫文章論戰，可是這年頭就直接用法律去解決。我被這樣的法律告過，所以我知道那樣的法律和法律的執行會創造一種非常強烈的寒蟬效果，限制了言論和思想自由。如果講自己的意見就會找麻煩，誰還願意講呢？這樣非主流的意見就被消音了。很多複雜的、差異的意見和生活議題，是不適合法院來處理的。

主持人，許江：

這一點，我覺得大陸也有很多街道居委會有非常多的經驗，

何春蕤：

在台灣，這個法律和執法的形成，背後推動的力量是基督教的宗教團體和一些很保守的婦女團體，她們都有很強大的正當性。

轉載本文請保留原網頁註記