les voix: For/Getting｜Re/Membering

博士這件事

我不算特別高調的人，關於PhD 的事（自己說），但十一月實在是太重要的moment了——11月21日，終於正式拿到社會學的博士學位了！

從交thesis corrections 到corrections approval，咻一下子就結束了。一切發生得太快，一陣心慌，彷彿很多事情將要結束了。這種感覺是當時昏天暗地趕論文的時候，無法預想到的。

有太多事情可以回顧了：一開始整個人的信心被重創，幸好受到許多人鼓勵而堅持下去，最後終於在社會系找到新的指導教授、轉系成功；整個過程非常曲折。口試時來自政治和國關領域的口委的讚賞，因此又發現新的出路。有太多人需要感謝了！

決定在這裡公開謝辭，希望能為這個過程留下一點紀錄：

Acknowledgement

For the past months, I have looked forward to writing these paragraphs to have an opportunity to thank people for all of their extraordinary support, which has enabled me to keep moving forward with all of the energy and hope that this adventure requires.

This thesis is the product of conversation and brainstorming with others. It has been a privileged, though tortuous, journey, that I would not have been able to complete without so many people’s encouragement. To acknowledge all of the people is a formidable task, but I would at least like to mention the following whose support was vital.

Primarily, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof Susie Scott and Dr Catherine Will, for their generosity in terms of thinking with me, finalising this work, and advising on difficult situations. Without them, I would not have been able to settle down in the field of sociology. In this respect, I cannot thank Dr Maria Moscati any more, for her unflagging support, whether I was in the Law or Sociology Department. I also want to thank both examiners, Prof Cynthia Weber and Dr Matthew Waites, for their engaging conversation and inspiring feedback during and after the viva voce.

Undertaking the training courses and pursuing a postgraduate diploma on Social Research Methods was an unexpected surprise in my PhD life, and I am indebted to all of the lecturers who have motivated my curiosity and passion for social studies. In particular, I would most like to thank Prof Gerard Delanty, Prof Susan Millns, Dr David Orr, and Dr Kim Lasky, as well as Prof Gurminder Bhambra (who was then at the University of Warwick), who encouraged me to publish essays, reminded me of critical thinking, and taught me how to enjoy academic work.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Ministry of Education (Taiwan), for their economic support for this study. I should also express special thanks to the Sussex Doctoral School and the Sussex Rights and Justice Centre – particularly Prof Jane Cowan, Prof Louiza Odysseos and Dr David Karp – for their generous funding for my participation in many important events during these years. Meanwhile, I would like to thank Dr James Millard and Ms Debbie Miller very much, who provided me with many resources through engaging in the modules in relation to the Department of Global Health (BSMS).

I am grateful to Prof Yean-Sen Teng and Prof Chueh Chang, who introduced me to the complex relationship between public health and human rights, Prof Wang Hsiao-Tan and Mr Chang Hong-Cheng, who inspired me to see things from gender/sexual perspectives, and Dr Amir Paz-Fuchs and Dr Phoebe Li, the supervisors during my early years of PhD study. At the outset of this work, I appreciated the feedback and inspiration from Dr Paul Boyce, Dr Pauline Oosterhoff, Mr Alex Pollard, and many colleagues at the Sussex Law School, the School of Global Studies, Sussex Asia Centre, and the Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research.

No work can be achieved without a supportive environment, so I thank many people for their professional support, especially Prof Aleks Szczerbiak (Director of LPS Doctoral Studies), Lindsey Allen-Cavell and Mike Davy (LPS Research and Enterpriese), Rachel Cole (Centre for Language Studies), Joanne Chee, Nicola Short, and James Gordon (International Student Support), Deborah Boulter, Sarah Longstaff, and Jo Blake (Research Student Office), and Danny Weddup (Student Life Centre). On this, I cannot thank enough Huei-Chun Wu, who works at the Taipei Representative Office, and my proofreader Clare Sandford, for their great help.

Collecting data, testing ideas and networking with the like-minded is always like doing an experiment, and some spaces are just the best laboratories for collaboration. In this regard, I wish to thank all the tongzhi activists who have inspired me with their working and lived experiences, especially those engaging in ILGA Asia, the ‘Queer’ Asia collective, UK-China Media and Cultural Studies Association, Queerology.Net, Formosa Salon, Taiwanese Study Group on Global Health in London, and, more significantly, the Plain Law Movement.

Moreover, thanks must go to my friends, past and current, within and beyond academia, whose impact on this study and my life in England has been indescribable. Thank you: David, Tianyang, Pin-Hsien, Wen-Ching, Chung-Hsien, Hung-Chieh, Yeyang, ChangJung, Kai-Yuan, Chih-Hueh, Yu, Sean, Shih-Fan, En-Ming, Noa, Vicky, Doris, Yunlong, Piyarat, Lily, Po-Chang, Quin, Ying-Chao, Eva Cheuk-Yin, Yo-Hsin, Hoching, Ming-Jui, Chia-Yu, Takahiro, Haozhan, Ru-Yu, MaryFrances, Gizem, Maria, Gill, Sarah, Chi-Chun, Levis, Ami, Tyrell, Jon, Martin and Ana, and my beloved Jessuper comrades in Taiwan and the US!

Of course, a special tribute must be paid to my parents, Chih-Yang Lee and Su-Lan Hsieh and my sweetest brother Po-Tsang Lee and my friend/sister-in-law Szu-Chieh Chen for their constant belief and unending confidence in me as well as their financial and emotional support; without which, I could not have gone this far.

Finally, yet importantly, a particular mention must go to my dearest partners, Alvaro Martinez-Lacabe and Chuan-Lung Wu. They have been not only a great source of affective and logistical support but also a strong inspiration for my intellectual and personal growth – I am indebted to them for their understanding, care and love, whose ‘homes’ have sheltered my fear and insecurity that helped me to pass through many dark moments of this journey.

October 2019

後話：不得不提一下香港

去除一切政治理論術語——什麼文明啊、現代性競逐、抗爭、解殖/內化殖民性、諸眾、嵌合等等——所有的分析，對當局和當局者而言，都或多或少在硬塞動機（或協助粉飾太平）。

然而，再多虛浮的診斷與辯護都無法平息腥風血雨；赤裸裸地把警察當軍隊用，都算是一種自我暴露「正當性危機」的confession 了。

事實上，我還沒看到法律人的「硬是要分析」的貼文（很好奇）。

我反而覺得在這場「內戰」中，法律人完全凸顯出理論工具匱乏的窘態，除了喊口號以外，啥都分析不了。

但「一國兩制」呢？朋友這麼問。對我而言，這就是自始一切矛盾的存在。只要涉及暴力，就不可能有「一國兩制」，因為只有國家能合法使用暴力，而人民除非在極端狀況，根本就只能處於被合法挨打。

也就是說，只有指認有暴力發生，那麼只有「一國」，沒有「兩制」（頂多存在於後設的法律評價云云）。

再者，雖然暴力這個整體，可能可以硬去分解來看（如大部分法律人的處理方式），假裝有好幾個獨立發生的事件（彼此並不牽連），然後再假裝單一事件中可以分成好幾個步驟來看，因此才能討論合法性、非法性；但無論如何，這一切都將基於「人民使用暴力，先視為非法，除非『情有可原』」的前提。

如果以上都還不算說錯的話，法律的角度自始就是要保護國家和統治階級的。也根本無從討論到一國兩制了不是？

當然可能可以從人權的角度來談警察暴力，但那其實也是後話了。

所以我想表達的其實是，在討論暴力的時候，法律分析其實是蒼白無力的——一旦整個行動被轉向定調為「安全問題」時（而不再是法律寬容的最後底線：和平抗議），法律就只是維穩的工具了（至少在事件仍在發展的當下）。

上面其實我也沒有說完。所謂「法律也只是維穩的工具」，當然不是完全沒有空間。

既然是工具，使用工具的人（執法者、釋法者，甚至立法者都可能有亡羊補牢的空間）就能決定怎麼用那個工具——要嘛就真的完全殺紅了眼，「合法地」暴力以對（如香港現況）；但其實也能睜一隻眼閉一隻眼，冷處理、文宣戰、心理戰。

維穩的方式很多（就跟「解決爭端」一樣），但最後訴諸最原始、刀光劍影的方法，也顯見在國家意志中，香港人的命、香港社會內部的和平（和安全）其實都不太重要（或至少比威嚇、震攝、壓制所能達到的目的還不重要）。

至於那個「非得硬幹才能達到的目的」是什麼？這可能要放回中國的政治和外交脈絡去看了，但我還沒理清楚。

後來，看到何式凝老師寫的那篇 “Where is feminism in the Hong Kong protests?” 更是覺得諷刺。

This reminds me that there have been diverse feminist interventions at different places, which aimed to ‘experimentally’ incorporate a feminist politics in their Independence and/or ‘Pro-Democracy’ movements and political agendas but ‘failed’. They are, at best, just considered unimportant, unhelpful, or distracting, and at worst, regarded as irrelevant and even doing a disservice.

The conclusion, unfortunately, may thus be that any contemporary attempt of making or remaking statecraft is just incompatible with feminism (despite its variations), since a ‘modern state’ is by nature as well as by definition patriarchal (and necessarily heterosexist). The only thinkable (but unviable and perhaps unacceptable) solution is to undo/unmake the state. (Who am I kidding here?!)