破解二元對立，改寫能動主體：性暴力受害者脆弱性的正面意義

Understanding the Rape Victim: Moving Beyond Binary Opposition of Agency and Vulnerability

10.6255/JWGS.201906_(44).03

王曉丹(Hsiao-Tan Wang)

強暴 ； 性暴力 ； 同意 ； 被害者化 ； 能動主體 ； 脆弱性 ； rape ； sexual assault ； consent ； victimization ； agency ； vulnerability

女學學誌：婦女與性別研究

44期（2019 / 06 / 01）

77 - 108

繁體中文

社會論述再現性暴力經驗時，經常誤解受害者主體。台灣現有文獻雖已提出不少批判觀點，但仍應繼續發展理解受害者的適當分析框架。本文以「能動主體」的概念，從個體在結構下的資源與限制之觀點，重新建構主體概念，旨在重讀性暴力受害者。本文的重點在於批判社會論述中的二元對立化約論─關於強暴是什麼的「同意或不同意」（第二節）、關於主體位置的「被害者或能動主體」（第三節）、關於人性的「能動性或脆弱性」（第四節）。本文主張，這些非此即彼、被二元化約的兩極，侷限了認知框架，使得非坐落於光譜兩極的性暴力經驗難以被發覺，甚至被誤讀，也造就了社會論述中譴責被害者的重要資源。為了避免上述問題，必須拒絕二元對立化約論，一方面應打斷「能動性－陽剛氣概－主體位置」的鏈結關係，避免追求完全能動性，致力翻轉過去控制文化的理解模式；另一方面，必須在認識論上翻轉脆弱性的意義，從負面轉向正面，唯有保持所有人皆易感、易受傷的脆弱性，才得以具備能動性，而發展一種協助受害者的倫理。本文建議，女性主義政治應該以此種新的認識論為基礎，致力發展改變社會主流強暴論述的策略與行動。

Although there is some feminist literature in Taiwan criticizing how the social discourse misunderstands the agency of the rape victim, very little touches upon the operation of social discourses that dominate the way in which rape victims are perceived, judged, and evaluated. This paper aims to explore the cognitive distortion of social discourses regarding rape victims, and discusses the possibility for change in terms of reinterpreting the concept of agency and vulnerability. Western feminist literature is reviewed and it is argued that the binary oppositions of ＂consent/non-consent＂ in the defining of rape, ＂victim/agent＂ in subject position, and ＂agency/vulnerability＂ in human nature, have all resulted in the social production of victim condemnation. In order to escape the dilemma of identifying rape victims only in accordance with this dichotomy, it is important to understand that other points of reference exist along the continuum. In achieving this, a new epistemology of rape can emerge that not only connotes a more positive understanding of vulnerability but also reshapes the idea of agency by breaking its links with masculinity in the subject position of the victim. This paper concludes by suggesting how feminist politics can strive towards transforming rape discourses based on this new epistemology.

1. 王曉丹(2010)。聆聽「失語」的被害人─從女性主義法學的角度看熟識者強暴司法審判中的性道德。台灣社會研究季刊，80，155-206。
   連結：
2. 李佳玟(2017)。說是才算同意（Only Yes Means Yes）─增訂刑法「未得同意性交罪」之芻議。臺北大學法學論叢，103，53-118。
   連結：
3. 林美薰、吳姿瑩（2018）〈沒有同意就是性侵（Only Yes Means Yes）─全球女權運動「積極同意」的倡議、教育與立法運動〉，《現代婦女基金會》。取自 http://bit.ly/2G8ECoc
   連結：
4. 蔡雁雯,蘇蘅(2016)。性侵報導的強暴迷思與轉變。新聞學研究，128，85-134。
   連結：
5. Abrams, Kathryn(1995).Sex wars redux: Agency and coercion in feminist legal theory.Columbia Law Review,95(2),304-376.
6. Abrams, Kathryn(1999).From autonomy to agency: Feminist perspectives on selfdirection.William and Mary Law Review,40,805-846.
7. Alcoff, Linda Martin(2009).Discourses of sexual violence in a global framework.Philosophical Topics,37(2),123-139.
8. Barker, Chris(2004).The SAGE dictionary of cultural studies.London:Sage.
9. Bartky, Sandra Lee(1982).Narcissism, femininity and alienation.Social Theory and Practice,8(2),127-143.
10. Bergoffen, Debra(2011).Contesting the politics of genocidal rape: Affirming the dignity of the vulnerable body.New York:Routledge.
11. Bergoffen, Debra(2009).Exploiting the dignity of the vulnerable body: Rape as a weapon of war.Philosophical Papers,38(3),307-325.
12. Bergoffen, Debra(2003).February 22, 2001: Toward a politics of the vulnerable body.Hypatia,18(1),116-134.
13. Brownmiller, Susan(1975).Against our will: Men, women, and rape.New York:Simon and Schuster.
14. Butler, Judith(2004).Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence.New York:Verso.
15. Butler, Judith(Ed.),Gambetti, Zeynep(Ed.),Sabsay, Leticia(Ed.)(2016).Vulnerability in resistance.Durham:Duke University Press.
16. Cahill, J. Ann(2016).Unjust sex vs. rape.Hypatia,31(4),746-761.
17. Cahill, J. Ann(2001).Rethinking rape.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
18. Code, Lorraine(2009).A new epistemology of rape?.Philosophical Papers,38(3),327-345.
19. Connell, Raewyn W.(2005).Masculinities.Cambridge, UK:Polity.
20. Cover, Rob(2014).Sexual ethics, masculinity and mutual vulnerability: Judith Butler's contribution to an ethics of non-violence.Australian Feminist Studies,29(82),435-451.
21. Cowan, Sharon(2007).Choosing freely: Theoretically reframing the concept of consent.Choice and consent: Feminist engagements with law and subjectivity,London:
22. Fineman, Martha Albertson(2008).The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition.Yale Journal of Law and Feminism,20(1),1-23.
23. Fineman, Martha Albertson(2010).Transcending the boundaries of law: Generations of feminism and legal theory.London:Routledge.
24. Freeman, Jo(Ed.)(1994).Women: A feminist perspective.New York:McGraw Hill.
25. Gavey, Nicola(2005).The cultural scaffolding of rape.New York:Routledge.
26. Gilson, Erinn C.(2016).Vulnerability and victimization: Rethinking key concepts in feminist discourses on sexual violence.Sign: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,42(1),71-98.
27. Halley, Janet(2016).The move to affirmative consent.Sign: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,42(1),256-279.
28. Healicon, Alison(2016).The politics of sexual violence: Rape, identity and feminism.London:Palgrave Pivot.
29. Lacey, Nicola(1998).Unspeakable subjects, impossible rights: Sexuality, integrity and criminal law.Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence,11,47-68.
30. Lamb, Sharon(Ed.)(1999).New versions of victims: Feminists struggle with the concept.New York:New York University Press.
31. MacKinnon, Catharine(2016).Rape redefined.Harvard Law and Policy Review,10,431-477.
32. MacKinnon, Catharine(1987).Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
33. Mardorossian, Carine(2014).Framing the rape victim: Gender and agency reconsidered.New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.
34. Nedelsky, Jennifer(1989).Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts, and possibilities.Yale Journal of Law and Feminism,1,7-36.
35. Nelson, Hilde Lindemann(2001).Damaged identities, narrative repair.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
36. Pateman, Carole(1980).Women and consent.Political Theory,8(2),149-168.
37. Phillips, Lynn(2000).Flirting with danger: Young women's reflections on sexuality and domination.New York:New York University Press.
38. Smart, Carol(1990).Law's power, the sexed body, and feminist discourse.Journal of Law and Society,17,194-200.
39. Stringer, Rebecca(2014).Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times.Hove:Routledge.
40. Toit, Louise du(2007).The conditions of consent.Choice and consent: Feminist engagements with law and subjectivity,London:
41. Whisnant, Rebecca (2017) Feminist perspectives on Rape. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-rape/
42. 王曉丹（2017）〈女性主義實踐為何漏接了房思琪？「自我」的生存之道與逃逸路線〉，《巷仔口社會學》。取自 https://bit.ly/2ZpR2D0
43. 林芳玫(1995)。師大強暴「疑」案報紙報導之分析：誰是加害者？誰是受害者？。新聞學研究，51，33-55。
44. 胡錦媛(2016)。性別／律法／單一正義─《欲望街車》中的敘事。月旦法學雜誌，249，32-43。
45. 殷海光基金會（編）(2007).自由主義與新世紀台灣.台北:允晨.
46. 張娟芬（2016 年 9 月 23 日）〈夏林清奇觀【輔大心理系性侵事件系列九】〉，《上報》。取自 https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=4516
47. 陳昭如(2013)。基進女性主義的強暴論。思想，23，207-233。
48. 陳瑤華（編）(2014).台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014.台北:巨流.
49. 彭仁郁（2016）〈誰怕性侵受害者？一段理論與創傷真實錯身的故事〉，《芭樂人類學》。取自 http://guavanthropology.tw/article/6530
50. 勤定芳(2011)。政治大學法律科際整合研究所。
51. 劉毓秀（編）(1995).台灣婦女處境白皮書：1995.台北:時報.
52. 羅燦煐(1998)。性暴力的文化再現：港台強暴電影的文本分析。新聞學研究，57，159-190。
53. 顧燕翎（編）,鄭至慧（編）(1999).女性主義經典.台北:女書.

1. 鍾道詮,蔡承宏,王舒芸(2022)。性別圖像失衡的社會工作專業教育。東吳社會工作學報，42，1-54。
2. (2022)。性侵受害者的能動轉向——改變認同群體的關係法意識。政大法學評論，169，87-122。
3. (2024)。試論「跨性別迷思」：以女性主義視角探討其定義、類型、事實與成因。弘光學報，94，119-136。
4. (2024)。原住民族早育女性懷孕前的生命經驗：離散、錯置與創傷。臺大社會工作學刊，50，55-97。