龚鹏程对话海外学者第六十九期：在后现代情境中，被技术统治的人类社会，只有强化交谈、重建沟通伦理，才能获得文化新生的力量。这不是谁的理论，而是每个人都应实践的活动。龚鹏程先生遊走世界，并曾主持过“世界汉学研究中心”。我们会陆续推出“龚鹏程对话海外学者”系列文章，请他对话一些学界有意义的灵魂。范围不局限于汉学，会涉及多种学科。以期深山长谷之水，四面而出。

迈克尔·布朗斯基教授（Professor Michael Bronski）

哈佛大学媒体和激进主义实践教授

龚鹏程教授：您好。自1960年代末，在石墙暴动期间，您一直是LGBTQ（同性恋、双性恋、变性者及酷儿）权利运动中的一份子。您能否与我们分享一下有关当年的回忆，以及您是如何踏上权利运动之旅的呢？

迈克尔·布朗斯基教授：龚教授，您好。20岁时，我在石墙暴动几周后加入了纽约的同性恋解放阵线(GLF)。这是我作为酷儿权利活动家历程的开始。

但同性恋解放却已是我参与的第四次社会正义运动。高中时，在罗马天主教学校自由派神职人员的鼓励下，我在家乡新泽西州参与了多场民权游行。到高三时，我参加了反对美国在越南的残酷军事行动的游行。1967年，在大学期间，我的大多数女性朋友都成为了激进的女权主义者，我与她们探讨，并阅读了当时激进社会正义思想的女权主义评论，令我对性、性别和权力的看法都产生了改变。

对我而言，以及对几乎所有在石墙暴动后参与这些运动的人来说，同性恋解放顺理成章地成为下一步行动。这是一场争取广泛社会和个人自由、基本宪法权利的运动，与极权作斗争，并承认性和性别在每个人生活中的重要性。

在石墙暴动发生之前，我就“出柜”了——我所有的朋友都知道我是同性恋——但在那个时代“解放”运动还是令人难以置信的。

在同性恋解放阵线的会面中，我们时常通过使用其他运动产生的修辞概念，进行各种令人兴奋的政治讨论，同时也融合了巨大的、爆炸性的色情能量。如果你幸运的话，这种能量有时体现在性行为(与一个或多个人)中，但却也是持久友谊、文化合作和政治组织的基础。这就是今天LGBTQ新闻报道、酷儿小说、酷儿诗歌、酷儿艺术的开端。

毫不夸张地说，一种全新的酷儿想象力彻底改变了世界。

对酷儿人群来说，这种无限的热情和能量对文化现状、对“正常”的美国生活方式、对假定的异性恋政治的颠覆都是富有创造性的，也是一种对生活的肯定。

I joined the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) in New York weeks after the Stonewall upraising, when I was 20 years old. This was the start to my journey as a Queer activist, but Gay Liberation was the fourth social justice movement in which I was involved. In high school – encouraged by the liberal clergy in my Roman Catholic school – I participated in numerous Civil Rights marches in my home state of New Jersey. By senior year I was going on marches against the brutal American military actions in Vietnam. In 1967 – in college -- most of my women friends became radical feminists my views on sex, gender, and power were changed speaking with them and reading the feminist critiques that had radicalize social justice thought at this moment.

For me – and for almost everyone in immediately years of post-Stonewall organizing who were also involved in these movements – Gay Liberation was the logical next stop. This was a movement for expansive social and personal freedoms, basic constitutional rights, that was combating often deadly power-structures, and acknowledging the importance of sexuality and gender in everyone’s lives.

I was “out” before Stonewall – all of my friends knew I was gay – but the celebratory “liberation” of the times was incredible. GLF meetings were a mixture heady political discussion – often using rhetorical concepts generated by the other movements – and enormous, exploding erotic energy. That energy sometimes – if you were lucky – resulted in a sexual action (with one or more people) but was also the basis for enduring friendships, cultural collaborations, and political organizing. This was the beginning of today’s LGBTQ press, queer novels, queer poetry, queer art, and – without exaggeration – a new queer imagination that radically changed the world.

This boundless enthusiasm and energy were as disruptive to the cultural status quo, the “normal” American way of life, the politics of presumed heterosexuality as it was creative and life-affirming for queer people.

龚鹏程教授：您的著作在记录美国LBGTQ群体历史发展方面发挥了重要作用。在您的《美国酷儿史》一书中，您提到“LGBTQ人群受隐瞒而不清楚自己的历史是一种暴行和丑闻的揭示”。这是什么意思呢?

迈克尔·布朗斯基教授：是的，我引用了在《哈利·波特》系列中海格对哈利不知道自己的血统时说的一句话来引出这一点——而我认为确实如此。

在过去的两个世纪里，至少在美国，“历史”—— 不管我们指的是什么——在记录的过程中伴随着各种假设:只有重要的日期和事件；只围绕着名人的传记展开，且大多数是男性；人民的个人生活和情感对我们国家的发展没有任何影响。大多数历史学家都不关心种族、性别、性取向、情感和欲望等问题。像艾米莉·狄金森这样对女人有性欲望的人，或者像沃尔特·惠特曼这样有同性关系的人，他们的个人生活从未被探索过。这并不奇怪。

狄金森为女性写情诗——她的性欲是其中不可或缺的一部分。命名和讨论任何形式的性欲都是讨论历史的重要部分。

我在《美国酷儿史》中试图做的并不是单单指出谁在历史上体会到同性欲望——这只是第一步。更重要的是探索为什么这些欲望促使他们做出了一系列的行动，以及这些欲望如何影响历史。

举个例子:许多20世纪早期的女性发明了社会工作和公共卫生的理念，她们爱着其他女性，并与其他女性生活在一起。

她们之所以能够彻底改变美国的历史和社会，正是因为她们没有结婚(因此只能在家照顾孩子)，并得到了女性恋人和女性朋友极大的、甚至通常是非常公开的支持。

讽刺的是，我认为我们所谓的酷儿美国历史并不存在——它只是美国历史。诀窍在于探索这段历史的根源，深入档案，找出人们之间更深层的故事;是谁在为多元性取向和性别群体的心理、情感的内在生活、性欲带来影响。

Yes, I do argue that in the book – using a quote by Hagrid from the Harry Potter series about Harry not knowing his heritage – and I think it is true. Over the last two centuries, at least in the United States, “history” – whatever we mean by that – has been written with many assumptions: it was just matter of important dates and events; it was structured around the biographies of notable people, most men; people’s personal lives and affections play no role in shaping how out country grew. Historians, for the most part, were unconcerned with issues of race, gender, sexuality, emotions, and desire. It is no surprise that the personal lives of people, such as Emily Dickinson, who had sexual desires for women or who, like Walt Whitman, actually had same-sex relationships were never explored. Dickinson wrote love poems to women – her sexuality is integral to that. Naming and discussing sexual desire – of any sort – is an important part of discussing history.

What I tried to do inA Queer History of the United States is not point out who, historically, experienced same-sex desires – that is only the first step. More important is to explore why these desires prompted them to do what they did and how that influenced history. An example: many, many early 20th century women who invented the idea of social work and public health were women who loved and lived with other women. They were able to radically change U.S. history and society precisely because they were not married (and thus confined to the home and childcare) and had the enormous, often very public, support of women lovers and friends.

Ironically, I’d argue that what we call queer American History does not exist – it is just American history. The trick is to explore the roots of this history, delve into the archives, and find out the deeper stories of the people; their psychologies, emotional inner-lives, sexual desires – of all sexual and gender varieties – who enabled it to happen.

龚鹏程教授：近年来，社交媒体和政治上出现了对酷儿理论的反对。有些人认为，早期的大部分要求已经得到满足，LGBTQ权利运动现在正进入停滞期。也有人认为酷儿理论已经达到“政治正确”的地步，成为了压迫“正常”人的霸权。您怎么看待这些趋势？LGBTQ 权利运动的未来是什么？

迈克尔·布朗斯基教授：我认为有个重点要牢记在心——即使我们从来没有这样细想过，但这是显而易见的——那就是所有的理论、政治和行动主义(以及其他与此相关的一切)都处于一种不断被评估的状态。现在酷儿运动的目的和目标与20年前或50年前已经完全不同。

他们必须如此改变，因为世界已经发生了巨大的变化。有些早期的战斗已经取得了胜利，有些则没有。在这场尚未取得胜利的战斗中，权利活动家将使用不同且更符合当下的策略。政治现实总是在变换——往往是朝着更好的方向，但并非总是如此——社会正义的工作是永无止境的。既没有停滞期，也没有后酷儿世界。

酷儿理论——与酷儿政治有关，但又非常不同——也会随着时间的推移而变化。正如我们对引力的理解比艾萨克·牛顿更复杂(尽管他基本上是对的)，当人们今天讨论酷儿理论时，它与30年前的讨论大有不同。它更微妙，更复杂，而且在许多方面来看，也不那么学术，更容易理解。

这是否已经成为“政治正确”的问题，在文化上是一个有趣的问题。然而，我认为，从逻辑上和政治上来说，这都是一个错误的质疑。从历史上看，保守派一直使用“政治正确”一词来反对他们不喜欢的想法。对“黑人的命也是命”的广泛支持被人们归类为“政治正确”，主流媒体尊重变性人的准确称呼被嘲笑为“政治正确”。

这样的例子不胜枚举。与其将新的政治信仰、社会习俗和行为斥为“政治正确”，不如问“这是思考这个话题的有效方式吗?”、“为什么一个人或一群人会问其他人这个问题?”或“在这种情况下使用这词是否有作用或有利于澄清语言？”。“政治正确”阶段总是结束对话，永远不会开启有益的对话。

I think that important thing to keep in mind – and this is obvious, even though we never think this way – is thatall theory, politics, and activism (and everything else for that matter) is in a constant state of evaluation. The aims and goals of queer activism are now completely different than they were 20 years ago or 50 years ago. They have to be – the world has changed tremendously. Some of those early battles have been won, some have not. In fighting the battles still-to-be-won activists will use different tactics, more appropriate for today. Political realities are always changed – often for the better, but not always – and the work of social just is never done. There is no plateau, or post-queer world.

Queer theory – connected to queer politics, but very different – also changes over time. Just as we have more complicated understanding of gravity than Isaac Newton did (although he was basically right) when people discuss queer theory today it is very different than when it was being discussed three decades ago. It is more nuanced, more complex and – in many ways – less academic and more understandable.

The question of if this has become “political correct” is an interesting one culturally. I think, however, it is logically and politically the wrong question. Historically, the phase “politically correct” has been used by conservatives against ideas they do not like. Wide scale support for Black Lives Matter was categorized by people as being “politically correct,” the mainstream media’s respecting the accurate pronouns of transpeople was derided as “politically correct.” The list is endless. Rather than dismiss new political beliefs and social conventions and actions as “politically correct” it would be more useful to ask, “is this a useful way to think about the topic?” or “why might a person or group of people ask this of others?” or “would this be useful or clarifying language to use in this situation?” The phase “politically correct” always closes the conversation, it never opens to a useful dialogue.

龚鹏程教授：的书后，我不禁想到LBGTQ运动在美国比在世界其他地区取得的成就更卓越。例如，您提到很多初中和高中都有同志与非同志联盟。什么是同志与非同志联盟?能回顾一下这些联盟的成功和挑战吗?

迈克尔·布朗斯基教授：如果美国是同性恋群体社会变革的先锋那就太好了。唉，但事实并非如此。在LGBT人群的人权问题上，我们当然比沙特阿拉伯或伊拉克要好得多，但与许多西方国家相比，无论是过去还是现在，我们都不是最领先的。

举个简单的例子:法国在1792年废除了将同性活动定为犯罪的法律，英国在1967年废除了这一法律——直到2003年，美国最高法院才裁定同性私下活动受宪法保护。清教传统在多种方面塑造了美国人对性的态度。这种清教传统在很大程度上已经被极其保守的基督教福音教义所取代，而后者与共和党的政治野心密不可分。

的确，很多学校——大多在东北和西海岸;而不是在南方——允许学生成立同志与非同志联盟。这些社会团体或讨论小组并不一定有公开的酷儿学生，但它们是为了向所有希望支持LGBTQ议题的学生提供支持。这些团体很重要，既可以挽救生命，也可以树立平等和接纳的榜样。不能低估他们的社会和政治力量。随着去年在多个州兴起所谓的“不准讨论同性恋”法律，让我们希望这些主要是在初中和高中的群体不要受到右翼政治力量的抨击。

虽然美国在LGBTQ权利方面的记录喜忧参半，但在通过流行文化和大众媒体推广LGBTQ的生活和体验方面做得很好。现在，在许多电视节目、电影和许多产品的电视广告中，都有公开的酷儿角色。酷儿可见性是一个受欢迎，并非常有用的教育工具，即使不算，也可以让人们习惯这样的想法，即LGBTQ 人存在，并且出现在情景喜剧也足够正常。

然而，将可见性与平等权利或社会政策进步混为一谈是错误的。迪斯尼频道上出现公开的同性恋角色不会在反LGBT政策的中学走廊上保护公开的同性恋学生。酷儿可见性是酷儿解放进程中的重要一步，但可见性却并不等同于自由或平等。

It would be lovely to think that the United States is in the vanguard of social change for queer people. Alas, this is not the case. We are certainly much better than say Saudi Arabia or Iraq on human rights for LGBT people, but this is not true – historically or in the present – in comparison to many western countries. Simple example: France repealed their laws criminalizing same-sex activity in 1792, England did in 1967 – it took the United States until 2003 for the Supreme Court to rule that same-sex activity in private was constitutionally protected. In multiple ways American’s Puritan heritage has shaped its attitudes to sexuality. This Puritan heritage has been, to a large degree, supplanted by deeply conservative Christian Evangelical teaching which inextricably tied to GOP political ambitions.

It is true that many schools – most often in the northeast and west coast; not the south – have allowed students to form Gay Straight Alliances. These are social groups or discussion groups that may or may not have openly queer students but are created to provide support for all students who want to support LGBTQ issues. These groups are important and can be life-saving as well as setting an example of equality and acceptance. It is impossible to underestimate their social and political power. With the rise of so-called “Don’t Say Gay” laws this past year in multiple states, let’s hope that these groups – mostly in middle school and high school – do not fall under attack by right-wing political forces.

While having a mixed record on LGBTQ rights, the United States has excelled in the promotion of LGBTQ lives and experience through popular culture and mass media. There are now openly queer characters in many television shows, in films, on TV commercials for a host of products. Queer visibility is a welcomed and very useful tool for educating people, if not you get them used to the idea that LGBTQ people exist and are normal enough to be on sit-coms. It is, however, a mistake to confuse visibility with equal rights or progressive social policies. Openly gay characters on the Disney Channel will not protect openly gay students in the hallways of middle schools with anti-LGBT policies. Queer visibility is an important step in the evolution of queer liberation but being visible is not the same as being free or being equal.

龚鹏程，1956年生于台北，台湾师范大学博士，当代著名学者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

办有大学、出版社、杂志社、书院等，并规划城市建设、主题园区等多处。讲学于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、台北、巴黎、日本、澳门等地举办过书法展。现为中国孔子博物馆名誉馆长、美国龚鹏程基金会主席。