研究生: |
吳美枝 Mei Chih Wu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
非都會區、勞工階級女同志的社群集結與差異認同--以宜蘭一個迌T女同志社群為例 The aggregation of community and different identities of non-urban, labor Lesbian --A case study of Chi-Tu lesbian community of I-Lan |
指導教授: |
譚鴻仁
Tan, Hung-Jen |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
地理學系 Department of Geography |
論文出版年: | 2004 |
畢業學年度: | 92 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 184 |
中文關鍵詞: | 女同志 、多重空間 、抗拒 、異性戀父權 、差異認同 |
英文關鍵詞: | Lesbian, multiple spaces, resistance, heterosexual patriarchy, different identities |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:440 下載:33 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本論文的研究目的,在於以宜蘭一個勞工階級的「 迌T」女同志為例,試圖在充斥都會區女同志身影的本土同志論述中,提供看見女同志多重主體的可能性。因此,本論文試圖自下列幾個面向,重構非都會區、勞工階級女同志的生命圖像。首先,描繪「 迌T」女同志社群網絡的形成過程,且進一步討論都會區和「 迌T」女同志社群集結憑藉的差異。其次,探究這群「 迌T」女同志在社群互動過程中,藉由何種方式,打造一個有共同性/別認同的女同志空間。其三,透過比較「 迌T」和「不分」女同志在多重空間的認同方式差異,以梳理「 迌T」和「不分」女同志的T、P角色認同差異,且進一步探索其認同差異的原因。有鑑於此,本論文採取質性取向的個案研究,以參與觀察和深度訪談兩種方法,在為期11個月的田野現場蒐集資料。
研究發現為:一、「 迌T」是以取同姓氏、順名號、同字輩和歃血為盟等方式,建構社群的邊界。而此「 迌T」社群更藉由幫派的社群規範;重視「兄弟互挺」與「大哥帶頭」的「兄弟文化」;與兄弟文化的信任關係,作為維持此社群網絡運作的機制。據此,研究明顯地呈現,在都會區女同志大部分以刊物、網絡、T吧等為集結憑藉的情形下,「 迌T」以「兄弟關係」為社群集結憑藉,是有異於都會區女同志的社群集結樣貌。二、這群「 迌T」女同志在社群互動過程中,藉著符號和象徵的身體、地景銘刻方式,以形塑、加強性/別認同,呈現一個既顛覆且複製異性戀父權的女同志空間。三、「 迌T」女同志對於多重空間的壓迫形式,呈現「並不總是」在抗拒的現象,且這種非持續性的抗拒方式,使得「 迌T」女同志在多重空間中的認同,出現差異的認同樣態。再者,比較「 迌T」和「不分」女同志,在多重空間的差異認同,是呈現不同的面貌,且兩者的主體認同也出現兩種截然不同的論述。最後,本論文發現城鄉差異和階級兩要素,是造成都會區女同志和「 迌T」女同志集結憑藉差異的重要原因之一。此外,階級和城鄉差異,所造成接觸論述資源和物質資源的權力差異,也是台灣女同志主體形塑差異的要項。
The purpose of the thesis is to take the labor “ Chi-Tou T” for example to offer the multi-possibilities of lesbian subject patterns though under the influence of the mainstream of urban-central lesbian theory. Therefore, the thesis tries to reconstruct the image of the non-urban, laborious lesbians from the following dimensions. First of all is to describe the process of the formation the lesbian community, then to discuss the difference of how the “ Chi-Tou T” and “Urban Lesbians” aggregate and develop their own communities. We further explore that by what way the “Chi-Tou T “ build the Lesbian space through the interaction in the community. Third, by comparing the differences of their identifications in multiple spaces, we can clear out the differences of the roles of T and P for “Chi-Tou T” and “non-T,P”. And then move to understand the reasons for the differences of their identifications. In view of this, the research is carried out with qualitative case study by the methods of observational involvement and profound interview.
The 11-months field research finds out that, first, “Chi-Tou T” borders their world with the same first name, slogans, the same mid name or the blood-drinking swear ( the members sip the blood in a container got form each of them, and swear to be brothers.) . They cherish the spirit of brotherhood, set up the rules as those in a gang, emphasizing the importance of helping each other and the leadership as the factor for maintaining the community.It’s obvious that the urban lesbians form their community by journals, networks and T bras while “Chi-Tou T” by their brotherhood. Second, in their interaction, we know the “Chi-Tou T” would have symbolic tattoos or male-like physical to form the landscape to strengthen their identification, implying a lesbian space both overthrowing and copying of the heterosexual patriarchy. “Chi-Tou T” don’t always resist the oppressions in multiple spaces. This non-continuous resistance in different places cause different identities in multiple spaces. Furthermore, the comparison between the differences of their identification in multiple spaces result from totally different discourse. It’s found that the difference between town and country and social classes are the main factors for their different ways of aggregations. Besides, the difference of their classes and between town and country also lead to their different powers to manipulate the resources. This is also the main cause of the different formation of their subjects.
Althusser, L. (1972). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In B. R. Cosin (Ed.), Education: Structure and society. Haemondworth: Penguin.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, gobalization and modernity. London: Sage.
Bell, D. & Valentine, G. (Eds.). (1995). Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities. New York: Routledge.
Bell, D., Binnie, J., Cream, J. & Valentine, G. (1994). All hyped up and no place to go. Gender, Place, and Culture, 1(1), 31-47.
Bondi, L. (1993). Locating identity politics. In M. Keith & S. Pile (Eds.), Place and the politics of identity. New York : Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bradley, H. (1996). Fractured identities: Changing patterns of inequality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. New York: Routledge.
Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 984-1014.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Lodon: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D. J., Kessler, S. & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Making the difference: Schools, families and social division. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Crang, M. (1998/ 2003). Cultural geography. 王志弘等譯。文化地理學。台北:巨流。
Edgar, A. & Sedgwick, P. (Eds.). (1999). Key concepts in cultural theory. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter- memory, practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Frith, S. (1996). Performing rites: On the value of popular music. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalim and modern social theory: An Analysis of the writtings of Marx, Durkheim, Weber. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, A. (1999/ 2001). Runaway world: How gobalization is reshaping our lives. 陳其邁譯。失控的世界。台北:時報。
Giddens, A. (1984/ 2002). The constitution of society. 李康、李猛譯。社會的構成。台北:左岸。
Giroux, H. (1981). Hegemony, resistance and the paradox of educational reform. In H.Giroux, A. N. Penna, & W. F. Pinar, (Eds.), Curriculum & Insrtuction (pp. 400-430). CA: McCutchan.
Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Gregson. N. & Rose, G. (2000). Taking Butler elsewhere: Performativities, spatialities and subjectivities. Enviorment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(4), 433-452.
Grosz, E. (1992). Bodies cities. In B. Colomina (Ed.), Sexuality & space (pp. 241-253). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzins & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held & T. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halsey, A. H. (1997). Education: culture, economy, and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hetherington, K. (1998). Expressions of identity: Space, performance, politics. London: Sage.
hooks, b. (1990). Yearing: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social identity. New York: Routledge.
Johnston, R. J., Gregory D. & Smith, M. (Eds.). (1994). The Dictionary of Human Geography 3rd ed. ,. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kindlon, D. & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. 該隱的封印:揭開男孩世界的殘忍文化。台北:商周。
Knopp, (1995). Sexuality and urban space: A framework for analysis. In D. Bell & G. Valentine (Eds.), Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities (pp. 149-64). London: Routledge.
Kramer. J. L. (1995). Bachelor farmers and spinsters: Gay and lesbian identities and communities in rural North Daktota. In D. Bell & G. Valentine (Eds.), Mapping Desire: Geographies of sexualities (pp. 200-213). New York: Routledge.
Longhurst, R. (1998). (Re)presenting shopping centers and bodies: Questions of pregnancy. In R. Ainley (Ed.), New frontiers of space, bodies and gender (pp. 21-34). New York: Routledge.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Malbon, B. (1999). Clubbing : dancing, ecstasy and vitality. New York: Routledge
Massey, D. & Jess, P. (Eds.). (1995). A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization. UK: The Open University.
McDowell, L. (1995). Body work: Heterosexual gender performance in city workplace. In D. Bell & G. Valentine (Eds.), Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities (pp. 75-95). New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, D. (2000). Cultural geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nycum, B. (2000). The xy survival guide: Everything you need to know about being young and gay. CA: XY Publishing.
O’Connell, P. J. (1991). 社會學辭典。朱岑樓主編、彭懷真等譯。台北:五南。
O’sullivan, N. (1997). Postmodernism and the politics of identity. In Kathryn Dean (Ed.), Politics and the ends of identity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Painter, J. (1995). Politics, geography and political geography: A critical perspective. New York: Halsted Press.
Patton, M. (1990/ 1995). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 吳芝儀、李奉儒譯。質的評鑑與研究。台北:桂冠。
Porta, D. D. & Diani, M. (1997/ 2002). Social monvements: An introuction. 苗延威譯。社會運動概論。台北:巨流。
Pratt, G. (2000a). Private and public spheres. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory& D. M. Smith, (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography 4th ed. (p. 636). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pratt, G. (2000b). Feminist geographies. In R.J. Johnston, D. Gregory& D. M. Smith, (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography 4th ed. (p. 260). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography. Oxford: Polity.
Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. London: Sage.
Thompson, S. (1998). Postmodernism. In A. Lent (Ed.), New political thought: An Introduction. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Thrift, N. (1991). For a New Regional Geography 2. Progress in Human Geography, 15(4), 456-465.
Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: an experiential perspective. The Geographical Review, 65(2), 151-165.
Turner, B. S. (1996). The body and society: explorations in social theory. London: Sage.
Valentine, G. (1992). Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time-space strategies.
Valentine, G. (1996). (Re)negotiating the " heterosexual street" : Lesbian productions of space. In N. Duncan (Ed), Body space (pp. 146-155). New York: Routledge.
Valentine, G. (2000a). Sexuality geography. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory & D. M. Smith, (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography 4th ed. (p. 739). Oxford: Blackwell.
Valentine, G. (2000b). From nowhere to everywhere: Lesbian geographies. London: Haworth Press.
Walker, L. (1995). More than just skin deep: Fem(me)ininity and the subversion of identity. Gender, Place, and Culture, 2(1), 71-76.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.
Yin, R. K. (1994/2001). Case study research. 尚榮安譯。個案研究。台北:弘智文化。
王志弘編(1996)。空間的社會分析。編者自印。
同志諮詢熱線(2002)。認識同志手冊。台北市政府民政局。
行政院主計處(1996)。台閩地區工商及服務業普查初步綜合報告。台北:主計處。
行政院主計處(2001)。中華民國九十一年度台閩地區電腦應用查報告。台北:主計處。
行政院主計處(2001)。台閩地區工商及服務業普查初步綜合報告。台北:主計處。
行政院主計處(2002)。中華民國九十一年度台閩地區電腦應用查報告。台北:主計處。
吳文煜(2003)。河邊春夢:台灣高雄愛河畔男性間性慾地景的人文地理學研究。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
呂錦媛(2003)。金錢與探戈:台灣女同志酒吧之研究。臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
我們之間。《女朋友》:試刊號~11期。
周珮儀(2000)。季胡課程理論之研究。台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
林浩芸(2000)。性別、空間與認同。地理教育,26:43-64。
邱天助(1998)。布爾迪厄文化再製理論。台北:桂冠。
胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。嚴祥鸞編,危險與秘密-研究倫理(頁141-158)。台北:三民。
胡幼慧主編(1996)。質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
夏鑄九(1994)。(重)建構公共空間—理論的反省。台灣社會研究,16:21-54。
夏鑄九(1997)。再理論公共空間。城市與設計,2/3:63-76。
夏鑄九、王志弘編譯(1988)。空間的文化形式與社會理論讀本。台北:明文。
殷寶寧(2000)。「中山北路」:地景變遷歷程中之情慾主體與國族認同建構。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文。
翁秀琪(1999)。眾聲喧嘩中談國家認同機制,中國時報,8月24日。
高宣揚(1991)。 新馬克思主義導引。台北:遠流。
張小虹(1996)。慾望新地圖。台北:聯經。
張娟芬(2001)。愛的自由式:女同志故事書。台北:時報。
張喬婷(2000)。馴服與抵抗:十位校園女菁英拉子的情慾壓抑。台北:唐山。
畢恆達(1996)。社會研究的研究者與倫理。嚴祥鸞編,危險與秘密-研究倫理(頁31-91)。台北:三民。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南。
陳俊榮(2000)。後現代的認同政治。台灣大學三民主義研究所博士論文。
陳國霖(1995)。華人幫派。台北:巨流。
陳貴林(1992)。地方體驗與環境韻律。季鐵男,建築現象學導論(頁367-391)。台北:桂冠。
陳順利(1999)。原、漢青少年飲酒行為與學業成就之追蹤調查。台東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
黃淑君(2000)。社會階級與青少年性別世界之建構:以台北都會區兩所國中為例。台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃毅志(1999)。社會階層、社會網絡與主觀意識 : 台灣地區不公平的社會階層體系之延續。台北:巨流。
楊文金(1998)。從「社會認同」探討「科學家意象」的意義 (續)。科學教育,207:18-24。
廖風德(1990)。清代之蛤瑪蘭。台北:正中。
趙彥寧(1996)。性、性意識及身體建構。何春蕤編,性/別研究的新視野(頁101-123)。台北:元尊文化。
趙彥寧(2000)。台灣同志研究的回顧與展望-一個關於文化生產的分析。台灣社會研究季刊,38:207-244。
趙彥寧(2001)。不分火箭到月球-試論台灣女同志論述的內在殖民化現象。戴著草帽到處旅行:性/別、權力、國家。台北:巨流。
劉光華(1998)。紀登斯結構化階級理論分析。東吳大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
鄭金川(1989)。梅洛龐蒂論身體與空間性。當代,35:34-46。
鄭美里(1997)。女兒圈:台灣女同志的性別、家庭與圈內生活。台北:女書。
鄭敏慧(1999)。在虛擬中遇見真實-台灣學術網路BBS站中的女同志實踐。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
賴正哲(1998)。在公司上班:新公園作為男同志演出地景之研究。淡江建築研究所碩士論文。
賴孟如(1998)。次文化空間之研究─以女同性戀酒吧為例。中原大學室內設計研究所碩士論文。
賴鈺麟(2002)。台灣同志運動與同志諮詢熱線之研究。台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
謝佩娟(1999)。台北新公園同志運動-情慾主體的社會實踐。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
簡家欣(1996)。喚出女同志:九O年代台灣女同志的論述型構與運動集結。台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
魏慧美(2002)。同志污名化:同性戀刻板印象的分析。論文發表於高雄師範大學性別教育研究所主辦的「同志學術研討會」,高雄。