陀思妥耶夫斯基、J.K.罗琳、儒家

（今天发在微信公众号上的短文，在Matters上也存档一份）

★  ☆ ★  ☆  ★

首先，上次『虚无时代』对谈的文字稿：

《文字稿·上｜当我们谈论人生意义时我们谈些什么》

《文字稿·下｜当我们谈论人生意义时我们谈些什么》

【Matters版本：《当我们谈论人生意义时我们谈些什么》】

★  ☆ ★ ☆  ★

其次，今年是陀思妥耶夫斯基诞辰200周年，上个月我作为陀老的“黑粉”，和作为陀老“铁粉”的姜林静老师一起，在《跳岛FM》展开了一场热烈而友好的磋商：

《Vol.82 陀氏诞辰200周年：在虚无的远方，爱具体的人 | 姜林静&林垚》

小宇宙收听链接：

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/619cfcc59be3e0f25948cd5e

★  ☆ ★ ☆  ★

再次，刚刚过去的周末，我和林品老师一起，在《不合时宜》聊了聊《哈利波特》作者J.K.罗琳这两年在跨性别问题上引发的争议、如何分析和看待“取消文化”之争、以及跨性别权益话题本身：

《被「取消」的罗琳，被误读的「取消文化」》

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/61a6ec4692a6f226cd1d1e40

节目里表达的观点，有一部分是我在以前的文章和采访里已经提到过的，这次在此前基础上做了进一步的拓展。借用主播的话来总结，就是：『反思“取消文化”，不能只反思政治正确和言论自由，更要反思平台算法和劳工监管。而批判所谓的“觉醒资本主义”，也不能只批判“觉醒”、而不批判“资本主义”』。

另外，这次参加节目的几位，包括我在内，都是顺性别人士，讨论起跨性别问题多多少少隔着一层。公众号 Queer Squad 上汇集了不少跨性别的写作者，其文章值得一读，比如这篇：《再谈跨性别者的厕所与相关问题》。还有《别任性》播客之前也做过一期讨论跨性别的节目，其中既采访了跨性别人士，也采访了从事相关医疗工作的医生，推荐一听：

《任性公益01：关于性别，跨性别者能教给我们很多东西》

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/603878eb97755b8fc9c67030

【又及：小宇宙评论区有听众对“简中舆论场”说法不满，我尝试回复但被小宇宙吞了：『我用这个词时，想的是简中互联网背后那只无形的大手（和手下若干小手），动辄删帖封号，其成本对那些认真做内容的人来说远高于那些营销号。营销号和谣言无论哪个语言网络都有，欧美也不例外，在那里反谣言也一样很艰难，但至少没有这种特定的激励结构扭曲。“简中舆论场”这种表述，是对我们独特的生存环境的愤懑感慨，并没有看不起简中用户的意思（毕竟我自己也是其中一员）。』】

★  ☆ ★ ☆  ★

最后，我这两天在期刊 Politics and Religion 上发表了一篇新论文，题为《从多偶制的幽灵到后殖民性的景观》(From the Specter of Polygamy to the Spectacle of Postcoloniality)，是对白彤东老师今年初发表于同一刊物的《儒家与同性婚姻》(Confucianism and Same-Sex Marriage) 一文的回应。拙文一方面肯定了白老师向西方学界弘扬儒家政治理论、以及在大陆儒家圈内抵御蒋庆等人恐同思想的努力，另一方面对白老师该文在同性婚姻、儒家、自由主义等议题上的具体论述提出了较严厉的批评，进而以其为案例，探讨如何恰如其分地进行比较政治哲学的研究、并分析我称之为『景观化的后殖民性（spectacularized postcoloniality）』的动力机制如何阻碍了学术界真正的去殖民化。

论文下载地址：https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S1755048321000304

或：https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3973564

导言部分如下：

In “Confucianism and Same-Sex Marriage,” published recently in Politics and Religion, Professor Tongdong Bai argues for a “moderate Confucian position on same-sex marriage,” one that supports its legalization and yet endeavors “to use public opinion and social and political policies to encourage heterosexual marriages, and to prevent same-sex marriages from becoming the majority form of marriages” (Bai 2021:146). Against the backdrop of downright homophobia prevalent among vocal Confucians in mainland China today, Bai claims that his pro-legalization rendition “show[s] a different version of Confucianism that challenges the received perception of Confucianism that it is deeply conservative, a perception that often lies at the core of the rejection of its contemporary relevance, especially by the so-called ‘liberals’ in China and elsewhere” (Bai 2021:133). Furthermore, Bai claims that his moderate Confucianism is normatively preferrable to “the typical liberal or individualist position” of a marriage equality supporter, because the specter of polygamy – the conservative trope of invoking polygamy as a reductio ad absurdum against same-sex marriage – imposes “a serious challenge” to liberals but not to moderate Confucians (Bai 2021:146, 153).

Both of Bai’s claims falter upon scrutiny, however. Granted, it is applaudable that Bai tries to dissuade his more conservative Confucian colleagues from opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage. But as Section 1 of this Response will show, the alternative rendition of Confucianism he presents, along with the way he presents it, is premised on a highly contested conception of what shared Confucian values are; does injustice to Confucians who embrace marriage equality more unreservedly (i.e., without caveats à la Bai); fails to produce new arguments that “enrich the theoretical basis for same-sex marriage” (Bai 2021:133); and, ironically, reinforces – rather than “challenges” – the “received perception” of Confucianism as deeply conservative. Meanwhile, Section 2 will show that Bai’s comparison between liberalism and moderate Confucianism relies both upon an apparent unfamiliarity with the extensive and nuanced liberal discussions on polygamy, and upon fallacious methods of assessing comparative normative valence.

Finally, Section 3 will offer some concluding thoughts from the perspective of decolonial theory, examining the dynamic of spectacularized postcoloniality that propels the production and consumption of dubious theoretical projects like Bai’s. As it turns out, this case serves not only as a cautionary tale of how not to conduct comparative normative theorizing, but also as a cautionary tale of how not to let the spectacle of postcoloniality derail the pursuit of academic decolonization.