女性主義轉移法律公、私界線之實踐台灣的性騷擾立法探究

Feminist Challenges to Public/Private Distinctions in Law an Inquiry into the Jurisprudence of Sexual Harassment in Taiwan

10.29816/TARQSS.200912.0001

陳素秋(Su-Chiu Chen)

女性主義法學 ； 公私界線 ； 性騷擾 ； 傅科 ； 台灣 ； feminist jurisprudence ； public/private distinction ； sexual harassment ； Foucault ； Taiwan

台灣社會研究季刊

76期（2009 / 12 / 01）

7 - 55

繁體中文

挑戰公、私界線是女性主義近年來對法律思想與體系，所提出重要且具影響力之批判，而此一女性主義法學挑戰也發生於台灣，並成功地影響了相關立法。然而，在這些女性主義法學主張落實為法律制度的過程裡，會與該社會場域中其他相關論述產生什麼樣的互動？這些互動又如何影響女性主義法學實現性別平等目的？這些議題的相關研究與討論目前似乎仍十分缺乏。 本文嘗試討論台灣社會中，女性主義因挑戰公、私界線，而發展出之法律論述實踐過程。以性騷擾為主題，檢視台灣性騷擾法律規範，以及相關立法過程中的各種討論。本文之分析由Foucault式觀點著手，亦即將特定法律規範之形成與運作，視為社會脈絡中的動態論述實踐，透過此觀點，除檢視此新論述中法律主體之形塑外，並重視分析此新論述如何與社會脈絡中其他論述競爭與協商，因而使原有論述被重新詮釋、甚至轉換等現象。 本文主張由於有著不同的公、私論述傳統，因此，雖然台灣引用了美國對於性騷擾的法律規範，但在此新論述形成與實踐過程中，台灣置換了美國用以正當化性騷擾立法的關係性自我之法律主體，並弔詭地開啟了國家進一步干預介入公民生活之場域，因而出現國家以道德規訓論述寄生於原來旨在實現性別平權之法律論述的現象。

One significant contribution of the feminist movement in advancing gender equality is to challenge established public/private distinctions in legal systems. Over the past two decades, such feminist jurisprudential challenges to the public/private distinction have successfully been incorporated in the form of legal regulations in Taiwan. However, to date very little research examines how, during the process of forging them into law and implementing them in practice, these arguments are negotiated or compete with correlative discourses in Taiwan, or how these processes affect the enforcement of gender equality. To explore these issues, this study focuses on the jurisprudence of sexual harassment in Taiwan. Employing a Foucaultian perspective, which conceives an article of law as a living discourse operated in context and practice, this paper examines the forms of legal subjects assumed in the enactment of new regulations, and how the struggles between competing discourses lead to unexpected transformations in the original law. This article argues that while sexual harassment regulation in Taiwan is highly influenced by American precedent, its translation into the context of a different Taiwanese public/private distinction has led, in practice, to the displacement of the very legal subject of the relational self which was originally employed to justify the jurisprudence of sexual harassment in America. The enactment of sexual harassment regulations also paradoxically creates a new field which enables the state's surplus intervention into citizens' lives, allowing the state's moral disciplinary sanctions to sneak into a law intended to ensure gender equality.

1. 焦興鎧(2003)。美國女性主義怯學者對工作場所性騷擾爭議之批判。歐美研究，33(1)，57-123。
   連結：
2. 焦興鎧(2001)。美國最高怯院與工作場所性騷擾之爭議。歐美研究，31(2)，325-420。
   連結：
3. (2005)。教育部怯規委員會第1116-1124次會議記錄。教育部法規委員會。
4. (2005)。校園性侵害或性騷擾防治準則草案訂定計畫成果報告。世新大學性別與傳播研究中心。
5. Allen, A. L.,M. L. Shanley (Eds.),U. Narayan (Eds.)(1997).Reconstructing political theory: Feminist perspectives.University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press.
6. Allen, A. L.,N. J. Hirschmann (Eds.),C. Di Scefano (Eds.)(1996).Revisioning the political Feminist reconstructions of traditional concepts in western political theory.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
7. Benhabib, S.(1992).Situating the self Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics.Cambridge, UK:Polity.
8. Boling, P(1996).priuacy and the politics of intimate life.Ithaca, NI:Cornell University Press.
9. Butler, J.(1997).Excitable speech: A politics of the performative.New York:Roudedge.
10. Cohen, J. L.(2002).Regulating intimacy: A now legal paradigm.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
11. Danielson, C.(1999).The gender of privacy and the embodied self examining the origins of the right to privacy in U.S. law.Feminist Studies,25(2),311-344.
12. Eisenstein, Z.,N. J. Hirschmann (Eds.),C. Di Stefano (Eds.)(1996).Revisioning the political Feminist reconstructions of traditional concepts in western political theory.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
13. Fairclough, N.,Wodak, R.,TA. van Dijk (Ed.)(1997).Discourse as Social Interaction.London:Sage.
14. Foucault, M.(1970).The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences.London:Tavistock Publications.
15. Foucault, M.(1972).The archaeology of knowledge.New York:Harper & Row.
16. Fraser, N.,J. B. Landes (Ed.)(1998).Feminism, the public and the private.New York:Oxford University Press.
17. Gobetti, D.,J. A. Weintraub (Eds.),K. Kumar (Eds.)(1997).Public ant/private in thought and practice: perspectives on a rand dichotomy.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
18. Hasian, M.(1995).Remembering and forgetting: a postmodern interpretation of the origins of the "right of privacy".Journal of Communication Inquiry,19(2),33-49.
19. Hershatter, G.,J. W. Score (Eds.),D. Keates (Eds.)(2004).Going public: Feminism and the shifting boundaries of the private sphere.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
20. Lever, A.(2000).Muse privacy and sexual equality conflict? A philosophical examination of some legal evidence.Social Research,67(4),1137-1171.
21. MacKinnon, C.(1991).Reflections on sex equality under law.The Yale Law Journal,100(5),1281-1328.
22. Mackinnon, C.(1983).Feminism, Marxism, method and the stare: toward feminist jurisprudence.Signs,8,635-658.
23. Mackinnon, C.,A. Phillips (Ed.)(1998).Feminism and politics.New York:Oxford University Press.
24. MacKinnon, C.、賴慈芸譯、雷文玫譯、李金梅譯(1993)。性騷擾與性別歧視：職業女性困境剖析。台北:時報文化。
25. Macpherson, C. B.(1962).The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke.Oxford:Caked University Press.
26. MarKinnon, C.(2000).Privacy and equality: notes on their tension.The Thocqueville Review,21(2),77-85.
27. Morgan, J.,M. Thornton (Ed.)(1995).Public ant private: Feminist legal debates.New York:Oxford University Press.
28. Morris, D.(2000).Privacy, privation, perversity toward new representations of the personal.Journal of Women in Culture and Society,25(2),323-351.
29. Tay, A. E.-S.,Kamenka, E.,S. I. Benn (Eds.),G. E Gaus (Eds.)(1983).Public and private in social lift.New York:St. Martin's Press.
30. Wall, E.(2001).Sexual harassment and wrongful communication.Philosophy of the Social Sciences,31,525-537.
31. Warren, S.D.,Brandeis, L. D.(1890).The Right to Privacy.Harvard Law Review,4(5),193-220.
32. Yeatman, A.,M. L. Shanley (Eds.),U. Narayan (Eds.)(1997).Reconstructing political theory: Feminist perspectives.Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University Press.
33. Young, I. M.(1990).Justice and the politics of difference.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
34. 卡維波(1999)。性騷擾的共識建構與立法：對吳敏倫觀點的進一步討論。性／別研究：性侵害、性騷擾專號，5-6，293-313。
35. 立法院公報(2005)。九十四卷第六期院會記錄。立法院公報(2005)。
36. 立法院公報(2001)。第五十八期與第六十二期院會記錄。立法院公報(2001)。
37. 立法院公報(1999)。八十八卷第三十三期委員會記錄。立法院公報(1999)，58,62
38. 立法院公報(2004)。九十三卷第四十五期委員會記錄。立法院公報(2004)。
39. 立法院公報(2004)。九十三卷第二十九期委員會記錄，第三十三期院會記錄。立法院公報(2004)。
40. 吳敏倫(1999)。我對訂立性騷擾刑法的意見。性／別研究：性侵害、性騷擾專號，5-6，283-290。
41. 高鳳仙(2006)。性騷擾防治法之規範精神與施行願景（上）。台灣本土法學雜誌，80，41-50。
42. 高鳳仙(2005)。性騷擾防治法立法期問爭議問題研究。全國律師，9(9)，63-75。
43. 陳惠馨(2005)。女性主義法學與性別主流化。律師雜誌，313，15-37。
44. 焦興鎧(2001)。大專校園性騷擾所引起之法律爭議及其防治之道？美國經驗所提供之啟示。國立中正大學法學集刊，4，3-36。
45. 焦興鎧(2006)。我國防治陸騷擾法制之建構。法令月刊，57(5)，460-483。
46. 黃克武、黃俊傑編、江宜樺編(2005)。公私領域新探：東亞與西方觀點之比較。台北:台大出版中心。
47. 黃俊傑、黃俊傑編、江宜樺編(2005)。公私領域新探：東亞與西方觀點之比較。台北:台大出版中心。

1. 林純德(2013)。「C／娘」的爭戰指涉、怪胎展演與反抗能動性 檢視「蔡康永C／娘事件」中的「性別平等教育女性主義」論述。臺灣社會研究季刊，90，163-214。
2. 鍾成鴻,廖紀華,林燕卿(2021)。台灣性騷擾研究發展與展望：文獻回顧報告。性學研究，12(1)，87-103。
3. (2020)。受僱者於「下班後」遭受性騷擾事件與適用性別工作平等法之關係——以性別工作平等法「執行職務時」之認定為核心。政大法學評論，160，209-282。