【雜談／書】邊讀《哲學研究》邊讀〈敢曝札記〉，Notes on "Notes on 'Camp'"

歷經數月及每週討論，把維根斯坦的Philosophical Investigations慢慢讀到78節，不知不覺中思索語詞已經成為潛意識的一部分，以至在性別讀書會讀Susan Sontag的 “Notes on ‘Camp’”時，先想到的不是酷兒和扮裝，而是——這篇散文簡直是PI的補充教材。結果，與其說我在閱讀“Notes on ‘Camp’”，不如說我在透過Sontag回證維根斯坦。

我對《哲學研究》目前非常非常粗略的理解，是：否定語言圖像論，否定一種把個別字詞跟特定對象以指涉關係連結起來的語言觀（「單詞命名對象，句子是這些名稱的組合」、「每個詞都具有一個意義」）。這種語言觀將語言從用法中抽離，尋求詞語意義固定的本質。在語言學習上，可以奧古斯丁在《懺悔錄》中描述自己學習語言的過程為例：

When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. […] Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires. (Augustine, Confessions, I. 8.)

以此開篇，維根斯坦發展他對這種「奧古斯丁式語言觀」的批判，提出「語言遊戲」的概念，說明字詞的意義與其「用法」之間的關聯，還有容許字詞意義模糊地帶的「家族相似性」。

Sontag在這篇短文中，給出了58個關於敢曝的說明（我想我還是迴避「定義」這個敏感字眼），爬梳「敢曝」（Camp）這個詞的歷史跟內涵。因此，應該可以推論，在讀完“Notes on ‘Camp’”後，讀者將能明白「敢曝」是怎樣的一種感受力（sensibility）、怎樣的美學、怎樣的風格。

而在此之前，我從未聽過「敢曝」，對它一無所知。——Sontag是怎樣解釋這個詞彙？我又是怎樣習得這個新詞彙的？這兩個問題意識正如我說，在閱讀中時刻盤桓在我心上，使得我不得不把“Notes on ‘Camp’”和《哲學研究》聯想到一處。

在《哲學研究》69節，維根斯坦提到：

How should we explain to someone what a game is? I imagine that we should describe games to him, and we might add: “This and similar things are called ‘games’”. And do we know any more about it ourselves? Is it only other people whom we cannot tell exactly what a game is? — But this is not ignorance. We do not know the boundaries because none have been drawn. To repeat, we can draw a boundary — for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all! (Except for that special purpose.) No more than it took the definition: i pace = 75 cm. to make the measure of length ‘one pace’ usable. And if you want to say “But still, before that it wasn’t an exact measure”, then I reply: very well, it was an inexact one. — Though you still owe me a definition of exactness. （粗體皆為後加）

在“Notes on ‘Camp’”裡，Sontag解釋敢曝的方式，是一種描述（敢曝是怎樣的）而非定義／「draw an exact boundary」（敢曝是什麼）。
（我一直都好喜歡詞源學上define跟boundary之間的連結——de-fine中的fine來自拉丁文的finis，指boundary, end。下定義就是畫出一條詞與詞／詞義與詞義的邊界。）

比如她說：

• Camp is a certain mode of aestheticism. It is one way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. (1)
• Camp is as well a quality discoverable in objects and the behavior of persons. (3)
• All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifices. Nothing in nature can be campy…(7)
• Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style — but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the “off,” of things-being-what-they-are-not. (8)

（對 “Notes on ‘Camp’”的引用，標記數字皆為原文中列點式書寫的號碼）

除了描述以外，正如《哲學研究》的解說者用舉例說明遊戲（“This and similar things are called ‘games’”），Sontag也以舉例說明什麼是（可以被稱為）敢曝的、什麼不是；例如，她在第40點說明中指出，雖然Genet和Wilde思想相似，但因兩者表達方式的不同，造成前者進不了敢曝殿堂，後者卻是敢曝的指標人物：強調敢曝「風格就是一切」的特徵。她在第4點說明更是直接給了讀者一張清單：

Random examples of items which are parts of the canon of Camp:
Zuleika Dobson
Tiffany lamps
Scopitone films
The Brown Derby restaurants on Sunset Boulevard in LA, headlines and stories
Audrey Beardsley drawings
…

類似的清單還會繼續出現，如：

The hallmark of Camp is the spirit of extravagance. Camp is a woman walking around in a dress made of three million feathers. Camp is the paintings of Carlo Crivelli, with their real jewels and trompe-l’oeil insects and cracks in the masonry. Camp is the outrageous aestheticism of Steinberg’s six American movies with Dietrich, all six, but especially the last, The Devil Is a Woman… (25)

正是從她重複陳列「敢曝」的各式展品，我才漸漸掌握所謂 “the love of the exaggerated, the “off,” of things-being-what-they-are-not” (8) 的說明所謂。

在《哲學研究》70節中，維根斯坦想像的對話者接續69節最後對這種沒有定義／給邊界的說明是否「不精確」的質疑：“But if the concept ‘game’ is uncircumscribed like that, you don’t really know what you mean by a ‘game’.” 

對此，維根斯坦是這麼回應的：

When I give the description: “The ground was quite covered with plants” — do you want to say I don’t know what I am talking about until I can give a definition of a plant?

《哲學研究》75節：

What does it mean to know what a game is? […] Isn’t my knowledge, my concept of a game, completely expressed in the explanations that I could give? That is, in my describing examples of various kinds of game; shewing how all sorts of other games can be constructed on the analogy of these; saying that I should scarcely include this or this among games; and so on.

一個定義會比描述（describing）和例子給出更多關於這個詞的知識嗎？我們需要知道定義才能掌握一個詞嗎？（在討論這個部分時，我們憶起柏拉圖〈游敘弗倫篇〉裡蘇格拉底指責游敘弗倫對「虔敬」的解釋只是舉例——對蘇格拉底來說，那不是真的「知道」何為「虔敬」。）

當我們掌握一個詞的使用時——我們不是就已經掌握了這個詞的意義了嗎？

回頭去看Marriam-Webster Dictionary中對Camp的定義：

Definition of camp
1a: something so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be considered amusing
This version of the play is camp: outrageous in concept and wild in its execution with double entendres flying every which way.a style or mode of personal or creative expression that is absurdly exaggerated and often fuses elements of high and popular culture
a movie that celebrates campexaggerated effeminate mannerisms (as of speech or gesture)

這樣的定義是否有比“Notes on ‘Camp’”說明得更好？若不給出Camp的例子，一個人是否可以在讀完這串定義後，正確無誤的指出哪些作品跟行為可被冠以「敢曝」之名？（又，是先出現人們對Camp一字的使用，還是先有定義？）

最後的最後——無論Marriam-Webster Dictionary或Sontag，都對Camp一詞在同志運動及酷兒論述中的重要意義跟使用沒有太大著墨。這一點是否又可以在「字詞的意義」此一題目上，給出什麼思考的方向？

-Disclaimer: 這是一篇不怎麼嚴謹的雜談，僅僅記錄在《哲學研究》這趟漫長探索中，某條支道上我驚鴻一瞥的風景。這是否是維根斯坦想說的？我也不太確定。只是我在交叉閱讀中，腦子processing的軌跡。

-Bibliography
Sontag, Susan. “Notes on Camp.” 1963.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe G E M., Blackwell, 1968.