他者的主體：跨個體的公民身份

The Subject of the Other: On Transindividual Citizenship

全球化之下，我們不斷遭遇也同時不斷作為他者，因此對於傳統政治哲學的探問必須轉向為，在集體身份或認同政治中如何能維持異質性或者該如何面對異質性？即我們如何看待他者並與他者共存？必須更進一步問的問題是，現在思考政治主體，是否還能放在傳統民族國家的公民身份框架下？這又涉及誰是公民的問題？又或者，我們是否要有能力，提供另一種公民身份的界定，說明這種集體身份的多重性或不可化約？本文試圖突顯公民身份所引發的矛盾。本文試圖證成，公民身份不應當作政治主體，他必須分離於由種族與國家所界定的自我認同。政治主體是在抵抗（resistance）、反抗（insurrection）、否定（negative）同一／認同的情境下才出現。本文的立場是，藉由排除而完成的「共同」與「同一」的身份同一／認同，並無法讓我們與更多的差異者共存。關於共同體或集體身份，是否可能建立在差異，而非同一的基礎。我們是否可能構思一種具有潛能的、動態的、張力的公民身份，打斷公民身份與民族國家間的關係，從而形構具有更多差異性的政治主體，而非固定僵化的界線。本文將以巴禮巴平等自由（l'égaliberté）、共－公民身份和跨個體為理論核心，說明公民概念是難以區辨，難以用單一標準劃界，也同時說明公民權的意義在於透過反抗、否定一切現存與屈從的制度而能實現普遍公民身份，亦同時實現普遍人權。

In the era of globalization, we constantly encounter the Other and continue to be the Other. Thus, the inquiry regarding traditional political philosophy shall turn to the question: how, in the collective identity politics, can one sustain the singularity or face the heterogeneity? In other words, the question can be thus raised: how can we regard the Other and co-exist with it? This question can further be extended thus: whether the thinking of the political subject can be put under the nation-state rubric of citizenship? The question comes again as, who is the citizen? Or whether we are capable of offering an alternative definition of citizenship in order to explain the multiplicity and irreducibility of the collective identity as such. The present study attempts to highlight the conflicts sparked by the problem of citizenship and then proceeds to advance the contention that citizenship should not be regarded as the political subject, and it must be separated from the identity politics defined and demarcated by race and nation. The political subject emerges only when the subject resists, insurrects and negates identity. The standpoint of the study is revolved around the fact that the “common” and “unity” identity, which has been accomplished through the process of exclusion, can hardly make us co-exist with the Other. Whether there exists a possibility that the community or the collective identity is founded on the basis of difference, rather than identity. Is it possible that we conceptualize a citizenship with puissance, mobility and intension in an effort to break down the relation between citizenship and nation state so as to configure the different political subject, rather than the enclosed and fixed border. The study employs Étienne Balibar's notions such as l'égaliberté, co-citizenship and transindividuality to explain why the notion of citizen is never an easy task to distinguish or even demarcate it. This expounds the fact that the significance of rights of the citizen relies on the actions of resisting and of negating the existing and subjugation institution, which, by so doing, can accomplish the universal citizenship and, in the meantime, the universal human rights.