「沒有拒絕」是否即是「同意」：藍騰與傑克森論「拒絕不可說」

Not Refusing Sex vs. Consenting to It: Langton and Jacobson on the Unspeakability of Refusal

鄭光明(Kuang-Ming Cheng)

拒絕不可說 ； 抗議性侵不可說 ； 藍騰 ； 洪斯比 ； 傑克森 ； the unspeakability of refusal ； the unspeakability of protest ； Rae Langton ； Jennifer Hornsby ； Daniel Jacobson

東吳哲學學報

28期（2013 / 08 / 01）

1 - 38

繁體中文

反色情的女性主義者藍騰（Rae Langton）及洪斯比（Jennifer Hornsby）曾主張：色情刊物會使得婦女遭到噤聲或「在言失能」（illocutionary disablement）而無法拒絕他人，並因此使其性自主遭到侵犯。然而傑克森（Daniel Jacobson）卻認為藍騰及洪斯比的論證會淪為歸謬論證，因此並無法成立。本文將主張藍騰及洪斯比會面臨下列兩難：她們認為我們有充分理由查禁色情刊物；然而如果她們想要得出「查禁色情刊物」此一結論，則她們就必須承認傑克森的批評言之成理，並承認自己的主張的確會淪為歸謬論證。這表示藍騰及洪斯比的主張在理論上是不一致的。

Famous anti-pornography feminists, Rae Langton and Jennifer Hornsby claim that pornography perpetrates upon women as ”illocutionary disablement”: it renders women incapable of performing certain acts (such as refusing and protesting) by speaking. Daniel Jacobson argues that if Langton and Hornsby are right, then there was no refusal at all; the strange and troubling consequence of Langton and Hornsby's argument, according to Jacobson, is that they cannot call this rape. He concludes that there is an absurd consequence to the claim that women have been illocutionarily disabled in this way, which can be taken as a reductio of the argument: it makes rape impossible in this hypothetical scenario. In this paper, I will argue that if Langton and Hornsby want to derive some powerful reasons for not allowing the publication of pornography from the argument, then they will be forced to accept the absurd consequence that they cannot call this rape. This means that Langton and Hornsby's argument is not cogent at all. In short, censorship is won for their argument only at the cost of coherence.

1. Austin, J. L.(1962).How to Do Things with Words.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
2. Dwyer, S.(Ed.)(1995).The Problem of Pornography.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
3. Hornsby, J.,Langton, R.(1998).Free Speech and Illocution.Legal Theory,4,21-37.
4. Jacobson, D.(1995).Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton.Philosophy and Public Affairs,24(1),64-79.
5. Jacobson, D.(2001).Speech and Action: Replies to Hornsby and Langton.Legal Theory,7,179-201.
6. LaFollette, H.(Ed.)(1997).Ethics in Practice: An Anthology.Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
7. Langton, R.(1998).Subordination, Silence, and Pornography's Authority.Censorship and Silencing: Practices of Cultural Regulation,Los Angeles:
8. Langton, R.(1993).Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.Philosophy and Public Affairs,22(4),293-330.
9. MacKinnon, C.(1993).Only Words.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Strawson, P. F.(1964).Intention and Convention in Speech Acts.Philosophical Review,73,439-460.