2014/10/28 「莊雅涵：誰怕多元家庭？──法國同志婚姻立法過程的省思」

莊雅涵：誰怕多元家庭？──法國同志婚姻立法過程的省思

摘錄自：天下雜誌每日報電子報                        2014/10/27

2013/10/19.

作者: 莊雅涵

樓梯響了多年，多元家庭法案終於送立法院審議了。在異性戀一夫一妻制仍掌握道德正當性的台灣，同志成家的可能性固然象徵著民主價值的前進，卻也誘引各種恐懼聲浪傾巢而出，無情地戳破了我們對台灣社會進步包容的想象。多元家庭是否只關乎非異性戀者？除了在民主大旗下吶喊著「尊重差異」之外，是否有其他論述足以支持這場運動？去年法國同志婚姻立法過程中的一系列討論或許能夠說明，多元家庭的解放意義超過現有的理解。

2012 年，隨著社會黨政府上台提倡同志婚姻立法，天主教會與右派在野勢力集結成反對陣線，發起了名為「法國之春」的杯葛運動。整個秋天，法國街頭被一群顯少上街示威的新面孔所佔據：天主教徒、右派政治人物、法西斯傾向的青年、談吐合宜的白人上流階級婦女等等，他們喊出「我們要工作，不要同志婚姻！」的口號，抨擊社會黨政府施政本末倒置。其實，法國在1998年已通過同志伴侶立法 (PACS)，相愛的兩女或兩男早就有依法結合的權利；同志婚姻立法的爭議因此另有源頭，來自於婚姻與親子關係的法律連結，保障同性伴侶結婚後可依法領養或尋求人工生殖擁有下一代的權利。

「由一位父親和一位母親撫養長大是每個兒童的基本權利」乃是反方最重要的論點。其中不乏類似台灣目前「同志亡國論」的論點，認為同志家庭將造成孩子家庭觀念的混淆，甚至對生育的抗拒。也有心理學者指出在非異性戀家庭成長將致使孩子被另眼相待，甚至以「別碰《一父一母制》！」(Touches pas père-et-mère) 為標題連署聲明：「世界上的所有家庭制度都起源於異性戀配偶的生育結晶，不論他們採取何種生殖管道。世界上的所有孩子都有權利擁有一對不同性別的父母，好為孩子的個體性建立明確的心理基礎。」而反對同志婚姻最積極的「一切為孩子連線 (Collectif pour enfants)」則說：「從人類學角度而言，兒童的自我認同始終來自於性別差異，以及其性慾滿足的樂趣。一旦其雙親之間不存在性別角色的對立，將造成其認同的混淆和人格失序。」甚至有心理學家試圖從佛洛伊德的理論出發，認為失去了一父一母的認同座標之後，最終後果便是亂倫禁忌的消解。不論援引何種理論，對反對同志婚姻者而言，一父一母作為孩子「權利」並非自由心證的天賦人權，背後隱藏的假設，似乎是「一旦沒有和別人一樣的家庭，孩子就會自我厭惡」的恐懼。

面對這些頂著科學光環的背書，支持同志婚姻合法的陣營如何反駁呢？家庭社會學的權威巴黎五大教授François de Singly 反駁了「同性婚姻就沒有性別角色分工」的說法：「同性戀的男人和異性戀男人一樣多。同性戀的女人和異性戀女人一樣多。她們或他們都和在其他婚姻制度中的人一樣可以扮演父親和母親的角色。」也有法學者投書說明異性婚姻並非親子關係的唯一基礎，一則法國社會的非婚生子比率已高達二分之一，僅僅父親的認可就足以證明法定的親子關係；二來，領養權可以開放給個人，當然也可以開放給同志伴侶。換句話說，異性戀家庭規範之外的家庭型態，絕對不限於同志伴侶而已。

我們似乎面臨了一場心理學者與社會學者的戰爭。當多數心理學家努力捍衛一父一母才是認同的座標時，社會學家卻試圖證明，人類情感生活的多樣性遠遠超乎於核心家庭作為常規的想像。在規範與慾望、社會與自我之間，一個經典的悖論昭然若揭：大多數人遵循的規則，是否就是社會制度唯一的合法性基礎？合群，是否就能快樂？不合群，是否就沒有資格被尊重？

在這看似兩難的辯論中，家族治療師 Caroline Thompson 的觀點破除了規範與現實間的對立。面對諸多心理學者在此議題上的競相表態，她指出心理學者面對個案的認同困擾，其職責不在於從社會規範對個案提出評價指導，而是退一步地聆聽。面對同志成家後新的婚姻與家庭秩序，「沒錯，我們的確面臨著一場人類學意義上的轉變，而這轉變是根植於當代個體自我建構過程中，個人自主性─包括其性傾向─的增加。」她也批評所謂「同志婚姻的孩子在學校會被嘲笑而受到創傷」的邏輯：「社會對於同性戀的接受度正在改變，在此過程中，心理學家唯一的角色便是陪伴個案。」

從「立法者」退一步為「聆聽者」，她對於心理學家角色的定義，也粉碎了「異性戀家庭制是兒童唯一認同根源」的真理形象。

當部分心理學家宣稱「失去了異性戀雙親的座標，孩子將會出現自我認同的危機」，值得譴責的是沒有異性戀雙親的孩子，或是霸凌他的社會？應該質疑的究竟是所謂「非典型」的生活方式、家庭結構，還是多數暴力？

更退後一步來說，不管在法國或台灣，受到「異性戀雙親才是社會常態、才是人格認同基準」的規範所霸凌的，絕對不只是同志伴侶家庭。當異性戀家庭被視為唯一合法的社會常態、「真愛」的泉源，同時也鞏固了傳統性別角色分工的想像、對於父職和母職的界定，並間接合理化對此規範外種種生活型態──單親家庭、隔代教養、單身者、失婚者──的輕蔑。無怪乎，在法國反對同志婚姻法案最不遺餘力的政黨，亦是在國會殿堂中性別意識最落後的政黨──一年之內，已發生兩次右派人民行動黨 (UMP) 男性議員在左派女性議員發言時因歧視性言行而引發杯葛的爭議。在《第二性》出版逾六十年的今天，右派的國會議員仍不習慣見到女性與其平起平坐地討論國家大事，可見其極力維護的「家庭價值」，影響絕不侷限於私領域。

當生理差異被視為社會規範的唯一合法性來源，被束縛的不僅僅是那些被劃為異常的「少數」，也包括自以為屬於「正常」的我們。

支持多元家庭的理由，因此不只是「多數包容少數」或是「異性戀有的，同性戀也要」的平等邏輯。當多元家庭不再受到指指點點，解放的不僅僅是渴望成家的非異性戀者們，也包括在社會眼光下努力活得像個「爭氣的男人」或「嫁得出去的女人」的你和我。

（作者為獨立評論法國特派員）

2014/4/12 「反同性婚姻 Mozilla執行長下台」

反同性婚姻　Mozilla執行長下台

摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報                        2014/4/11

2014-04-08 Web only 作者：經濟學人

圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/strandell/

推出Firefox瀏覽器等軟體的Mozilla，最近失去了它的執行長艾克（Brendan Eich）；艾克上任不到2周即請辭，也引發了十分棘手的問題：該如何劃分領導者的個人信念與他在企業扮演角色。

2008年，艾克向八號提案的宣傳活動捐助了1,000美元；八號投票提案的目標，便是禁止加州的同性婚姻。幾年前，艾克支持八號提案一事曝光之時，曾在推特圈中引發巨大的批評聲浪，但風波最後還是平息了。

上個月，艾克從科技長升任執行長，再次點燃了批評之聲；部分Mozilla員工不滿艾克對同性婚姻的態度，要求他辭職。約會網站OkCupid也向使用Firefox連線的使用者送出訊息，以艾克反對同性婚姻為由，希望他們改用其他的瀏覽器。

艾克選擇投降，Mozilla執行董事長貝克（Mitchell Baker）也在部落格中承認，艾克的個人信念為公司帶來了兩難。許多人大力質疑，艾克對同性婚姻的看法，與他帶領軟體企業的能力根本沒有關係。畢竟，艾克似乎非常適合這個工作；他是Mozilla的共同創立者，也是JavaScript的設計者。

然而，Mozilla並不是一間典型的企業。它比較像是社群組織，強力支持所謂的「開源軟體」，也支持保持網際網路的開放性。Mozilla十分倚賴程式設計者和他人的善意與支持；為了吸引這些人，Mozilla一向強調自己是個開放又具包容性的工作場所。

部分批評者指出，在Mozilla難以適應行動裝置時代之際，實在不能失去艾克這樣的人才。他們也強調，以個人信念為由強迫執行長辭職，等同於立下了危險的先例。

但執行長必須要能讓其他人追隨，也要能在廣大市場中激起信心。艾克就任執行長在Mozilla內部造成的分裂，可能會危及Mozilla追求的目標；OkCupid的決定，亦證明這場風波已經開始衝擊Mozilla的業務。

為何貝克在升任艾克時並沒有預料到如此衝擊？貝克在部落格文章中強調Mozilla員工的「多元化和包容性」，但也承認董事會並沒有「聆聽、接觸和接受社群的指引」。她那遲來的坦白值得稱許，但她的領導能力還是應該受到質疑。（黃維德編譯）

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014

經濟學人英文原文

The Economist

Mozilla's boss resigns

Exit Mr Eich

 By The Economist

 From The Economist

 Published: April 08, 2014

Apr 4th 2014, 10:25 by M.G. | SAN FRANCISCO

MOZILLA, the outfit behind the Firefox web browser and other software, has just lost its chief executive, Brendan Eich, who resigned on April 3rd after spending little more than a week in the job. His departure raises thorny questions about where lines should be drawn between leaders' personal beliefs and their corporate roles.

Mr Eich quit after a controversy blew up about his views on gay marriage. In 2008 he gave $1,000 to a campaign that supported Proposition 8, a California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in the state. The measure passed but was subject to legal challenges. Prop 8's supporters went all the way to the federal Supreme Court, which last year dismissed their appeal, thus allowing gay marriage in California to go ahead. When Mr Eich's support for the proposition became publica couple of years ago, it provoked an outcry in the Twittersphere, but this eventually died down. Mr Eich arguedthat Mozilla should stay focused on its mission and not allow differences of personal opinion to cloud its operations.

His elevation last month from chief technology officer to the top job at Mozilla rekindled the furore. Some Mozilla employees upset with Mr Eich's views on gay marriage called on himto step down. To make matters worse from Mozilla's perspective, OkCupid, a dating site, this week began sending out a messageto visitors coming to it via Firefox that called on them to use an alternative browswer because of Mr Eich's public stance against gay marriage.

Faced with all this, Mr Eich threw in the towel. In a blog postabout his departure, Mozilla's executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, admitted that the former chief executive's beliefs had created a dilemma for the company. "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech," she wrote. "Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need to have free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

Plenty of folk have wondered out loud why Mr Eich's views on gay marriage had anything to do with his ability to lead an organisation that makes software. After all, he seemed eminently suited to the job given his track record as a co-founder of Mozilla and the man behind JavaScript, a very popular programming language.

However, the dilemma that Ms Baker refers to is real. Mozilla isn't a typical company. It is more of a community organisation that is strongly committed to so-called "open-source software", which is developed collaboratively and then licensed for use in such a way that it can be studied and changed easily by others. The outfit also campaigns actively to keep the internet open in the face of efforts by a few giant tech companies such as Google and Facebook to carve it up into fiefdoms that they rule over.

So Mozilla is a bizarre beast in the world of tech: part business and part internet missionary. It also relies heavily on the goodwill of programmers and others to support its efforts. To woo them, the outfit has stressed that it is an open and inclusive workplace. In her blog post Ms Baker refers to the fact that Mozilla "prides itself on being held to a different standard" as an organisation.

By appointing Mr Eich to the top job, Mozilla's board members must have known they were risking a backlash. They only needed to consider the experience of Chick-fil-A, an American fast-food chain whose boss, Dan Cathy, had also publicly opposed gay marriage. Mr Cathy recently said he regrettedtaking a public stance on the issue after his firm was hit by a consumer boycott.

Some critics say that at a time when Mozilla is struggling to adapt its wares to a world dominated by smartphones and other mobile devices, it can ill-afford to lose a talented techie like Mr Eich. And they argue that forcing a boss to resign on the basis of his beliefs is a dangerous precedent that smacks of political correctness gone mad.

But a chief executive has to be able to get people to follow him and engender confidence in the broader marketplace. The schism Mr Eich's appointment caused within Mozilla risked damaging its ability to pursue its mission. And OKCupid's decision to call on Firefox users to switch to other web browsers is evidence that the fallout was starting to have a real impact on Mozilla's operations.

All this raises the question of why Ms Baker did not anticipate the impact that Mr Eich's promotion would have. In her blog post, she trumpets the "diversity and inclusiveness" of Mozilla's workforce, yet admits at the same time that the board failed "to listen, to engage and to be guided by our community". We should applaud her belated frankness, but hard questions should be asked of her own leadership in this sad saga.

©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2014