台灣是個強調多元文化並存的社會，多元文化的概念在今日已成為社會文化的價值核心，特別是針對一個由多種認同身分組合的社會，多元文化主義被視為一種多種族群認同與多種文化並存的可行策略；然而，在多元文化主義強調文化種類的多樣性與異質性，用來抵抗文化中的單一性和優越性的同時，其中仍有許多吊詭之處未經揭露與闡明。本文企圖透過法國思想家德勒茲Gilles Deleuze（1925 –1995）的哲學思維重新詮釋多元文化主義其中的衝突和矛盾。本篇文章指出，多元文化主義在反抗霸權文化的同化策略而消彌了文化差異，強調文化間的界限，維護各自文化的領域性的同時，其中卻隱含著文化的唯我主義（solipsism）和分離主義（separatism）；其次，在唯我主義與分離策略的保護下，多元文化主義拒絕文化認同的流動與文化間的混雜，可能使得弱勢文化停留在欲擺脫的認同及文化傳統框架中；如果多元文化主義喪失了提供弱勢文化發聲的空間，只以舊有的文化織理規範了文化分類與文化內涵，如此並未使族群真正擺脫舊有集體認同想像，使得原本要擺脫單一性，拓展多元性的企圖，卻掉落入另一種形式的文化帝國主義，逼迫弱勢族群放棄其自我的文化與認同詮釋。 Taiwan has been increasingly recognized as a multicultural society. There are Han and Hakka peoples, immigrants, Aborigines. The development of official public policies and strategies based on multiculturalism has had some effect on many aspects of the interests of the multicultural minorities. Multiculturalism is conceived as an alternative vision of cultural strategy whose objective is to resist cultural supremacy and to focus on the equality of different representations among cultures. However, multiculturalism is beset with many ambiguities and perplexities.From what positions is multiculturalism spoken of? Who defines which cultures should exist in this multicultural matrix? Can multiculturalism retain cultural solipsism, maintain cultural boundaries and at the same time subvert this solipsism in order to reach a wide understanding and tolerance of the cultural differences of the other and create a coherent society? What scenarios are the repressed and unspoken subaltern groups having or what will they have along the road of multiculturalism’s continued developments? Can multiculturalism be a generator of cultural diversity and avoid cultural hybridisation?This paper points out the problematic principles of multiculturalism in terms of cultural solipsism and separatism. It argues that the multiculturalist ideas of cultural diversity do not transform a subject-position, and therefore fail in re-interpreting cultural identity in a different grid. Cultural difference, particularly concerned with unspeakable or unspoken subjectivities, has not been sufficiently decoded in the discourse of multiculturalism. The question here is not only “can the subaltern speak?” but also “what can they speak of themselves?” If multiculturalism cannot successfully create a space for subaltern groups, it simply becomes an accomplice to cultural imperialism.
