| Abstract: | Abstract This paper refutes the dominant assumption that Taiwan, unlike Mainland China, has developed a greater degree of tolerance for non‐normative sexual expressions as a result of its democratization. Recent legal and cultural changes indicate that Taiwan’s democratization consists of tendencies and repressive countertendencies. At the same time, this contradictory development has uniquely enabled a body of indigenous Marxist writings that mobilizes different senses of ‘queerness’ to demonstrate that the official celebration of diversity and human rights has actually further alienated and disempowered sex workers, promiscuous homosexuals, gay drug‐users, and other social subjects that are considered to be a threat to the liberal‐democratic order. I offer a reading of the critical writings of Josephine Ho, Yin‐bin Ning, Ding Naifei, and Wang Ping since the 1990s to explain why Queer Marxism in Taiwan is founded on a strong a‐statist discourse. I argue that a Queer Marxist intellectual practice emerged in Taiwan because liberal pluralism, institutionalized in what these critics call ‘state feminism,’ has failed to redress effects of social exclusion that (1) persist not despite of, but precisely because of, post‐martial law liberal reforms, and that (2) diverge in significant ways from individual experiences as members of officially defined minority groups (women, aborigines, migrant workers, or homosexuals). If social structuration is not always synchronic or isomorphic with state‐engineered legal changes, this difference also provides the occasion for Queer Marxists to interrogate the intellectual division of labor between feminism, assumed to be the analysis of gender as a non‐pluralizable category, and queer theory, assumed to be the analysis of sexuality as a non‐singular but personifiable category. Only by distinguishing between social relations and social identity can we comprehend how the rise of the Taiwanese Independence Movement played a key role in the naturalization of homosexuality as a fictive ethnicity, to which Queer Marxism developed as a historical response. As a geopolitically specific analysis of the aporia of substantive personhood, the Queer Marxism in Taiwan I re‐historicize is also a significant contribution to Marxist critique of liberal formalism that is of use to readers across the globe. |
