摘要 本篇論文企圖從性、情感與親密關係的角度探討當代台灣文學文本所再現的男同志E藥/轟趴次文化。批評家賽門•雷諾茲（Simon Reynolds）曾指出，搖頭丸是一種社會性的藥物，基於此，我認為這些社會性（sociality）與人際關連（relationality）的元素，在任何對於搖頭丸的再現中都是不可或缺的要素。換言之，這些元素為任何探討搖頭丸的持續性敘述提供了敘事骨幹。在台灣的脈絡裡，農安街轟趴事件後已出版的搖頭丸文學文本皆以特有於台灣時空的男同志E藥/轟趴次文化作為敘事探索的主要內容。論文中我將細讀三個寫作形式各異的文學文本：網路部落格張貼文集結成書的《搖頭花—一對同志愛侶的e-Trip》（2005），小說《男灣》（2005），短篇小說集《紫花》（2008）。這些作品伴隨著台灣新興的男同志E藥/轟趴次文化而生，出版的日期相當晚近。我將論證，這些文本反映了有別於單偶一對一伴侶關係常模的另類親密關係，以各自的書寫形式試圖捕捉並深刻思考這些親密關係（或甚至是非親密關係），與關係之中複雜微妙的情感。這些情感不必然正面，而我的分析將特別聚焦於搖頭丸文化論述中經常忽略的負面情感。這些斷裂性的情感力道提供了一個個切口，讓我們得以察覺並進一步探究男同志E藥次文化中與伴侶關係糾纏牽連的多樣酷兒（對抗）位置性（queer (op)positionalities）。我對於這些情感與位置性的閱讀顯示，台灣男同志E藥文化絕非如P.L.U.R.論述中所幻想的一般，在情感上極度同質，而是由多樣複數的情感與互異衝突的位置性所組成。然而伴侶關係的霸權正威脅著將其他對抗的位置性徹底掃除。面對此一霸權主導，當代台灣酷兒政治與酷兒運動應致力於保全本土男同志E藥文化中諸多的情感裂隙與酷兒（對抗）位置性，而非過早給予其中任何一項位置性優先序位（或是特權）。當代台灣男同志E藥文化充滿了多重的情感裂隙與差異的位置性，在未來也應是如此。 Abstract This thesis investigates questions of sex, affect, and intimacy in contemporary Taiwanese literary representations on the drug Ecstasy and the local gay Ecstasy culture. Following critic Simon Reynolds’s proposition that Ecstasy is a social drug, I consider these elements of sociality and relationality central to any representation of the drug. In my thesis, I intend to read closely three texts written in three different forms—one is a collection of blog postings (E-Flower: A Gay Couple’s E-Trip), another a novel (Nan-Wan), and the other a short stories collection (Zi-Hua [The Purple Flower]). These works appeared only recently, as products of a newly emerged gay Ecstasy subculture specific to the Taiwanese time-space. As I would argue, they serve as reflections on and of alternative forms of intimacy to the monogamous, single partnership paradigm, registering in their respective textual form nuanced emotions produced under these modes of intimate relations (or even non-intimate ones). These emotions are not necessarily positive, and my analysis will focus particularly on negative ones often neglected in discourses on rave. These disruptive forces provide an opportunity for us to map out and further probe into widely differing queer positionings and (op)positionalities that exist in relation to the couple form. My reading of these affects and positionalities shows that the local gay Ecstasy culture is by no means characterized by a homogenization of affect envisioned in the utopian fantasy of P.L.U.R. On the contrary, gay E culture in the context of Taiwan is constituted and enlivened by an array of multifarious affective forces and differing positionalities. In the face of a couple form that is fast gaining hegemony and threatening to wipe out other contending positionalities, contemporary queer politics and queer activism should dedicate themselves to keeping all the affective ruptures and queer (op)positionalities within the local gay Ecstasy culture alive, without over-hastily prioritizing or privileging any of these positionalities over another. This is, and should continue to be, a culture with multiple affective ruptures and incongruent positionalities.
