台灣理論與知識生產： 以一九九○年代台灣後殖民 與酷兒論述為分析對象

Taiwan Theory and Knowledge Production: A Case Study on Taiwan’s Postcolonial and Queer Discourses in the 1990s

台灣快速轉譯、援用西方理論，從後現代、後殖民、精神分析、 酷兒、女性主義、現代性、全球化理論等等不一而足。但如同陳瑞麟 指出，台灣很少討論對西方理論的風格化應用能否形成自己的理論家 族、理論系譜？能否被國際學界看到？本文認為另一個重點應放在理 論如何被轉譯、挪用、再生產？如何被接合到台灣既有的論述（也是 某種理論）？在知識生產過程中有無誤用、濫用或不足之處？在解嚴 前後，理論被接受，通常是因其具有挑戰體制、重新詮釋過去、開展 未來的進步性，但不同的脈絡與政經社會條件下，理論援用的適切性 仍需要被檢視。本文以一九九○年代台灣後殖民與酷兒論述為分析對 象，探討台灣理論與知識生產。我將藉由討論兩種論述各自內部的論 戰與發展以及兩者之間的交鋒，一方面探討在當時台灣的脈絡下後殖民與酷兒理論援用的適切性，另方面討論台灣所形成的後殖民與酷兒理論家族。

In Taiwan, western theories such as postmodernism, postcolonial theory, psychoanalysis, queer theory, feminist theory, theory of modernity, and theory of globalization have been rapidly translated and appropriated. But as R. L. Chen points out, we rarely discuss whether stylized application or assemblage of western theories has formed a family or genealogy of theories, and whether the latter has become visible in the international academic scene. This article argues that, in addition to Chen’s concern, we should also pay attention to how theories are translated, appropriated, and reproduced, how they are grafted onto existing discourses (also a kind of theories) in Taiwan, and whether there is wrong use, abuse, or inadequacy of application in the process of knowledge production. Around the time of the lifting of the martial law, theories were often accepted because of their progressiveness in challenging the institutions, offering possibilities of reinterpreting the past, and opening up a new future. Nevertheless, we still need to look into the appropriateness of applying theories, given the differences in historical context and socio-political and economic conditions. Using Taiwan’s postcolonial and queer discourses in the 1990s as a case study, this article examines Taiwan theory and knowledge production. By probing into the internal debates and development of each discourse as well as the tension between these discourses, I will dwell on the appropriateness of applying postcolonial and queer theories within Taiwan’s context on the one hand, and discuss Taiwan families of postcolonial and queer theories that have emerged on the other.