置疑霸權儒家主義：去中國中心主義與多元性別主體經驗

Troubling Hegemonic Confucianism: The Problem of Sinocentrism and the Subjectivity of Sinophone Queers

多元性別（Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer，簡稱LGBTQ）運動在台灣已經發展三十餘年，2019年台灣通過同性婚姻法案，成為「亞洲第一」賦予同性伴侶實質權益的國家，一方面顛覆西方對於亞洲國家性保守的想像，同時也挑戰了在跨文化心理的比較脈絡中，長期將台灣的多元性別族群置入泛儒家主義框架中的「性壓抑」論述。為了理解華語語系社會內部性別的多樣性，本文認為心理學家必須解構習慣將「華人」作為一種同質文化、族裔、語言，甚至國家認同主體的中國中心主義問題（Sinocentrism）（史書美，2017），以及「華人」這個想像的共同體（Anderson, 2006）在心理學研究操作中的不穩定性。筆者主張文化應被視為一種權力關係（Gjerde,2004），而非以民族為單位的本質化概念。首先，本文將爬梳歐美受到後結構主義典範轉向後，酷兒理論與心理學結合對身分認同本質化的批判，並梳理在酷兒心理學脈絡中仍是以西方白人為主體想像的限制。再者，本文將解構「華人／性」（Chineseness and Chinese sexuality）中的東方主義假設，以及心理學分析中依賴單一、空泛的「儒家主義」所加深的文化本質論以及使得「華人」成為無邊無際的國族認同問題。最後，本文將提出文化作為一種「關注」（concern）的概念，力求將文化與性別研究更加深根於主體經驗，避免再次落入東西方對立的二元論。

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) movement has evolved in Taiwan for more than three decades. In 2019, Taiwan legalized same-sex marriage and became the“first country in Asia”to grant rights to same-sex couples. It has challenged the stereotypical“sexual repression”discourse that has long placed Taiwan’s LGBTQ communities under the cultural framework of Confucianism. In order to understand diverse sexual and gender subjectivities in Sinophone (Chinese-speaking) societies, this paper argues that psychologists must confront the problem of Sinocentrism in how we represent“Chineseness”in the cross-cultural as well as indigenous psychological framework. By privileging the issue of“culture,”Chineseness is often treated as a homogeneous ethnic, linguistic, and even national subject in psychological research. Instead, I emphasize that culture should be conceptualized as a power relationship, rather than an essentialized ethnicity or the intrinsic value of a given community. First, I highlight the Orientalist assumptions in the construction of a“Chinese sexuality”by frequently relying upon a single interpretation framework of“Confucianism”to analyze queer Sinophone and other queer Asian subjects’sexuality, which further reinforces“Chineseness”as a borderless national identity. Second, I argue that psychologists can shift away from a framework of culture to one of“concern”(Gjerde, 2004) to better capture the diverse subjectivities of Sinophone LGBTQ people and avoid falling back into East-West dichotomies. To dispute the Orientalist myths of the universal Sinophone subject (or Huaren), I identify the new directions of queer research in Sinophone societies that pay closer attention to the issues of intersectionality and decolonial justice in psychology and beyond.