typhotic iceberg 煙霧冰山

In 2018 on tumblr I wrote an essay called “Breaking Down the Term 'Voidpunk.'” In that essay, I explored the different connotations behind “void” and “punk,” and attempted to describe how “voidpunk” as a new term mixed those connotations together, and how to extrapolate praxis from that mixing. The main points of the essay roughly went like this:

• “Void” has an implication of nihilism
• “Punk” has a history of individualistic rebellion against society
• “Void” + “Punk” implies “human” is a concept based in nothing, and instead of performing “humanity,” why not rebel against society by personally identifying with your lack of humanity—which is a response generated by Western-centric understandings of humanity and rebellion
• Voidpunk as a concept is primarily concerned with how beings viewed as “not human” due to dehumanizing marginalization should deal with the society that dehumanizes them
• At the time I identified 4 types of praxes: misanthropy (going against society (if I had written this now, I would have said anarchism's anti-social or anti-civ), perhaps even wishing for the annihilation of the human race), solitude (acting like a hermit and minimizing social interaction), adaptation (following your own ideas instead of those imposed by society to determine how you associate), and speculation (actively investing your energy into changing society, perhaps even to the point of treating society as a means to an ideological end)
• Voidpunk was defined by a characteristic of recognizing that the self and society were irreconcilable, because the basic function of society was to create alienation
  

2018 年我在 tumblr 上寫了一篇文章，〈分析「空虛龐克」這一詞〉。在那文章之中，我探索了「空虛」和「龐克」隱含的不同意義，試圖描述「空虛龐克」的新詞如何把那些意義混合在一起，並且從這樣的混合如何推斷出實踐。文章的主要內容大概是這樣：

• 「空虛」有虛無主義的意味
• 「龐克」有叛逆個人主義的歷史
• 「空虛」+「龐克」的意味就是「人」是憑空捏造的概念，與其「人性」的表演，不如叛逆在個人方面上認同自己缺乏的人性—而這種反應是對人和反抗以西方為中心的認識創造出來的
• 空虛龐克的概念主要關注的是因為剝奪人性的邊緣化被視為「不是人」的生物該如何處理自己跟剝奪祂們人性的社會的關係
• 當時我確定了四種實踐：厭世（反社會（如果現在寫，我會說無治主義的反群、反文明），甚至希望人類被消滅）、獨居（像隱士般把社交互動降到最低）、適應（按照自己，而不是社會強加於的想法來安排交往）、臆想（積極投入精力改變社會，甚至把社會當作是實現主義的手段）
• 空虛龐克的特點就是自我跟社會無法化解的意識，因為社會基本的功能就是製造疏離

At the time, the creator of voidpunk as a concept roughly gave me the following response: “If you don't resonate with voidpunk because of your background there's no need to identify as voidpunk. Voidpunk isn't something meant to be used to harm other people.” Later, in 2019, the creator then made a post that said:

1. There is no one “right” or “wrong” way to be voidpunk. There is no voidpunk flag, there is no specific voidpunk aesthetic, there are no rules to voidpunk.

2. There is no deep meaning behind the term “voidpunk”. It was literally coined just because it sounded cool. You can ascribe meaning to it if you like, but at the end of the day, voidpunk is not necessarily about a “lack” of anything and does not have any specific look or feel to it.

當時，空虛龐克的概念創造者對我文章的反應大概是：「如果因為自己的背景不跟空虛龐克有共鳴就不必認同自己是空虛龐克。空虛龐克不是利用來傷害別人的東西。」後來，在 2019 年，創造者又 po 了新貼文說：

1. 當空虛龐克沒有「對」或「錯」的方式。沒有空虛龐克旗幟、沒有特別的空虛龐克美感、沒有空虛龐克的規則。

2. 「空虛龐克」這一詞沒有更深的意義。杜撰的原因只是因為聽起來很酷。想要的話可以自己歸因意義，可是不管怎麼說，空虛龐克不是關於什麼東西的「缺乏」也沒有任何特別的式樣或感受。

In short, the message is “I think your type of critique doesn't matter to voidpunk at all.” Well, that's fine. After all, I'm a rebel, I'm not after respect from others, but overturning the fate of the world. When I wrote “Breaking Down the Term 'Voidpunk,'” my goal wasn't to persuade the creator of voidpunk, but to express my own sentiments within the aromantic community, hoping to find resonance from other members. The me now who has long left that aromantic community has complicated feelings about voidpunk. On one hand, voidpunk inspired a kind of nonhumanistic ethos within me, which went on to permeate much of my later works of fiction. On the other hand, there's the creator's apathy towards this kind of ideological development and the majority of voidpunks on tumblr only treating voidpunk as an eye-catching aesthetic that at most has an important backstory about marginalization. Can I détourn voidpunk? No—do I need to détourn voidpunk? The thing is I'm really not that interested. Forget about voidpunk—I'm more interested in discussing what I took away from voidpunk.

總而言之，意思就是說「我覺得你這種批評對空虛龐克完全沒有意義。」好，沒問題。畢竟我是造反者，我要的不是別人的尊敬，而是革除世界的天命。當年我寫〈分析「空虛龐克」這一詞〉的原因也不是為了說服空虛龐克的創造者，而是為了在無浪漫傾向的社群之中說出我自己的感想，希望能找到其他成員的共鳴。現在早已離開那無浪漫傾向社群的我對空虛龐克有複雜的感覺。在一方面上，空虛龐克在我心中引發了一種非人類主義精神，而那非人類主義的精神滲透了我許多後來的虛構作品。在另一方面上，有了創造著對這種主義發展的冷漠和大部分在 tumblr 上把空虛龐克只當作是引人注目，頂多有關於邊緣化的重要故事背景的美感。可以異軌空虛龐克嗎？不—有需要異軌空虛龐克嗎？事實上我沒有太多興趣這麼做。忘了空虛龐克吧—我比較有興趣討論的是從空虛龐克得到的資訊。

At this point in time, if I were an academic, I would coin a horrible new phrase: “post-voidpunk.” Instead of doing that, I'd rather use language that's more distanced from voidpunk, since my demands are out of alignment with voidpunk's lack of demands. Earlier I used the term “nonhumanistic” to describe what I was doing. Now I want to discuss its implications.

到了這個段落，如果我是學者的話，我會新杜撰一個恐怖的詞：「後空虛龐克」。與其這樣的做法，我寧可利用跟空虛龐克有更多隔離的用語，畢竟我的要求跟空虛龐克缺乏的要求不一致。之前我利用「非人類主義」這一詞來形容我在做的事。現在我想說明一下非人類主義的意味。

“Nonhumanistic” comes from “humanism,” which Richard Ninmo in “The Making of the Human: Anthropocentrism in Modern Social Thought” defines as the doctrine of humans as “the measure of all things” in the world. It not only treats humans as exceptional beings, but also humanity as a universally generalizable condition. In Post-colonial Studies: Key Concepts, Ashcroft et al. criticize universalism / universality for “offer[ing] a hegemonic view of existence by which the experiences, values and expectations of a dominant culture are held to be true for all humanity.” In colonialism, the so-called universal humanity of the colonizer is used as the standard by which colonized people are judged. However, historically the response of many anticolonial thinkers was not to reject humanity, but to criticize the falseness of the colonizer's humanity in favor of recovering a true, decolonized humanity. In “Anti-colonialism and Humanism,” Ndindi Kitonga brings up Frantz Fanon's description in Black Skin, White Masks of the “new humanism” created through the process of disalienation, Steve Biko's “true humanism” only attainable after the successful collective resistance of Black people against racism, Es’kia Mphahlele's African humanism against Western hegemony and white supremacy, as well as Michael Onyebuchi Eze's Ubuntu philosophy as examples.

非人類主義源自人文主義，被 Richard Ninmo 在〈人類的製作：現代社會思想中的人類中心主義〉之內定義為人類當作是「一切事物的尺度」的學說。它不僅把人當作是獨特的生物，還把人性當作是普遍能泛泛而談的狀態。在《後殖民主義：關鍵概念》之中，Ashcroft 與其他作者批評普遍主義 / 普遍性「提供了一種對存在的霸權視角，之中一個主宰文化的經驗、價值觀和期望被當作是所有人的事實。」在殖民主義之中，殖民者所謂普遍的人性被利用來當估量被殖民人的標準。然而，在歷史上許多反殖民思想家的反應不是拒絕人性，而是批評殖民主義人性的虛假，為了要奪回真實，去了殖民化的人性。在〈反殖民主義與人文主義〉之中，Ndindi Kitonga 有舉出 Frantz Fanon 在《黑皮膚，白面具》之中形容去異化過程會創造出來的「新人文主義」、Steve Biko 認為需要黑人成功集體對抗種族歧視之後才能得到的「真人文主義」、Es’kia Mphahlele 反西方霸權跟白人至上主義的非洲人文主義以及 Michael Onyebuchi Eze 烏班圖哲學思想的例子。

In the face of humanism's contradicting lineages, my nonhumanism is a posthuman intervention. The goal of posthumanism is to transcend the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary. My nonhumanism is also influenced by anarchism and communism: in my stories, nonhuman characters are often insurrectionaries, revolutionaries, martyrs, and proletarians dominated or exploited by the state, colonialism, and imperialism. I don't literally use the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary as a way to explore the problem of speciesism; “human” and “nonhuman” to me are actually mere representations of dominator / exploiter / dominated / exploited, images of them spectaclized by the medium of fiction. To transcend the human / nonhuman(-coded) binary is then to transcend the classes of dominator / exploiter / dominated / exploited, creating a new society that has abolished class. The purpose of my nonhumanism was for agitprop in support of a classless society, so its praxis was always clear from the start—a praxis not of self-identity or self-expression, but of collective organization against the status quo of hierarchy and capitalism. Not no rules, but no rule—and absolutely reflecting the status quo's lack of liberation.

面著人文主義相互矛盾的世系，我的非人類主義是一種後人類主義的介入。後人類主義的目標就是超越人 / 非人（編碼）的二元。我的非人類主義也受到無治主義與共產主義的影響：在我的故事和遊戲之中，非人角色通常是被國家、殖民主義和帝國主義主宰或剝削的叛亂者、革命家、烈士和無產階級者。我並不確實地利用人 / 非人（編碼）二元來探索物種歧視的問題；「人」和「非人」其實對我來說只不過是主宰者 / 剝削者 / 被主宰者 / 被剝削者的代表，是他們被虛構的中介景觀化的圖像。要超越人 / 非人（編碼）的二元也就是超越主宰 / 剝削 / 被主宰 / 被剝削的階級，創造廢除階級的社會。我的非人類主義的目標就是為了無階級社會的宣傳鼓動，因此它從一開始就有清楚的實踐—不是自我認同或自我表現的實踐，而是集體組織對抗等級制度和資本主義現狀的實踐。不是沒有規則，是沒有統治—而且絕對地反映在現狀中缺乏的解放。

That having said, even though the lineage of my nonhumanism does include voidpunk, it's impossible to truly compare the two on a political level. Voidpunk never had any political goals, and its creator and users also never attempted to graft any political program onto it. And why should they have? Does everything really have to be weaponized to attack hierarchy and capitalism? Do you really have to ask everyone to make revolution the only goal in their life and treat everyone like a useful corpse? No, you really don't!

話說如此，雖然我的非人類主義的世系有包括空虛龐克，兩種概念無法在政治方面上真正地比較。空虛龐克本來就沒有什麼政治目標，它的創造者和利用者也並沒有試圖把什麼政治綱領移植到概念的身上。而且他們為什們有必要那麼做？難道所有的東西都必須變為攻擊等級制度和資本主義的武器嗎？你是一定要要求大家把革命當作是人生唯一的目標，把大家都當作是有用的屍體嗎？完全沒必要！

Confucius says, “When three are walking together, I am sure to find teachers among them.” I practice low theory. I think there are absolutely new liberatory praxes to be found amidst the hellscape of social media. “I will select their good qualities and follow them, their bad qualities and avoid them.” Voidpunk was one of those teachers that ended up having more qualities I wanted to avoid rather than follow—but I would be remiss not to acknowledge it for what it taught me. In the wise words of Ariana Grande, “Thank you, next.”

子曰：「三人行，必有我師焉。」我實施低情境理論。我認為在社交媒體的人間地獄之中確實能找到新的解放性實踐。「擇其善者而從之，其不善者而改之。」空虛龐克算是我師之中要改比要遵從的還要多—但不承認它交給我的知識就是失禮。用 Ariana Grande 明智的話來說：「謝謝，下一位」。