| 摘要: | 本論文主要在檢視蜜雪兒克里夫兩部半自傳小說中的四個賤民角色，而他們在其他評論中經常被忽略，或是被視作次要的角色，因此在此論文中將把這些角色集合在一起並詳細探討書中呈現的生活經驗。這四個角色的背景和社會地位差異極大，而他們遭逢的剝削與困境也不相同；也就是說，使他們成為賤民階級的因素也都是不同的。而這點顯示出賤民這一範疇其實並不是一個固定的團體，而是有各種不同的組成份子，也有差異性，甚至是衝突。史碧瓦克曾提出「賤民無法發聲」的主張，因為在第一世界的知識份子認為自己能為賤民們代言，而在這個過程中，賤民真正的聲音和主張就被知識份子挪用，最終消失不見。然而，詳細的去檢視小說中這四個賤民角色的經歷，我們將會發現他們的聲音在被挪用或取代之前，早已消失、被忽視、甚至被遺忘。這種困境的原因在於他們所經歷的剝削和壓迫使得他們不想，或不願意發聲，而選擇了沉默或甚至是與社會中各種支配性的力量共謀的立場。但這種沉默或是共謀卻是他們自己對於殖民主義、階級、性別或其他意識型態的反抗方式，即使這些方式看似消極或順從。換句話說，這些角色不僅揭露了即使在賤民的群體中也可能存在著差異與衝突，也帶出了消極性抵抗的可能性，並且問題化了對於反抗運動的一般看法。也就是說這種消極性反抗提出了相對於革命這類反抗運動的另一種可能。然而如果評論者或讀者忽略了關於這四個角色的重要細節，那麼也可能會陷入知識性暴力的陷阱中。 This thesis is focused on life experiences of the four characters that can be categorized into the subaltern in Michelle Cliff’s two semi-autobiographical novels, No Telephone to Heaven and Abeng, who are often neglected in other critics’ analyses of the novels. These four characters, Christopher, Bobby, Zoe and Kitty, are different in their backgrounds and social status, and the exploitation and predicament they have suffered are not the same, either. That is, what makes them subaltern is different, and this suggests that the category of the subaltern is not a single or fixed organization, but there could be dissimilarities, contradictions and also conflicts. As Gayatri Spivak has claimed that “the subaltern cannot speak,” because their voices will be appropriated by the first world scholars who think they can represent the subaltern people. Consequently, the subaltern people’s claims and voices are lost, and thus they cannot speak. However, by examining the experiences of these four subaltern characters together and in detail, it would be seen that before the subaltern’s voice could be appropriated, it is lost, forgotten or neglected. The reason is that the predicaments caused by exploitations and oppressions have made them do not wish to speak, but choose to be silent or even to conform to the dominant powers instead of voicing their claims. Nevertheless, this kind of silence and conformity is their own way of resistance to the injustices produced by colonialism, class, gender and other ideologies, even though it seems to be passive or submissive. In other words, these characters not only reveal that there could be dissimilarities and even conflicts in the subaltern group, but also bring out the possibility of a passive kind of resistance and therefore problematize the general notion of resistance as the revolutionary action. However, if the critics neglected or overlooked these trivial but important aspects of these four characters, they might fall into the trap of epistemic violence in the critical level. |
