臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要
本論文從偽裝的角度並以傅柯的權力關係為架構，探討霍桑《紅字》女
主角海絲特(Hester)如何運用偽裝作為她的反抗策略，《紅字》一書中故事發生背景是為清教徒社會，該社會是一種政教合一並以男性為中心的社會結構，在當時嚴厲的道德制度下，海絲特對於清教徒社會男女關係不平等的不滿的想法，會被視為離經叛道並違反了清教徒的社會準則，這樣的思想極有可能使她被清教徒社會視為異教徒，甚至可能為她帶來死罪，因此處於這樣的社會中，海絲特以 「偽裝」作為反抗策略是必要的，利用偽裝的欺騙特性，海絲特成功的欺騙了清教徒社會父權體系的監視系統，也顛覆了清教徒所加諸在她身上懲罰的意義，最後，經由她對有同樣痛苦女性的「開導」，她悄悄的傳佈對性別平等的期待與信念，這樣的想法在男性論述的社會體制中埋下顛覆可能，也說明了權力關係的不穩定性。
本論文包含五章，首章引言，包含了文獻探討、本論文的動機、與論文架構。第二章將詳述偽裝(disguise)與傅柯(Foucault)權力關係(power relations)與規訓(discipline)的概念，就偽裝部份，將整理各方對偽裝的看法與討論，由於偽裝的形式種類繁多，本論文將只著重於與海斯特(Hester)有關的偽形式做討論。第三章探討海絲特偽裝的背景、形式與意圖。下一章將探究海絲特如何利用偽裝達到顛覆並造成權力關係的不穩定，本章分為兩大部份，首先將討論Hester的懲罰，第二部份，將說明海絲特利用偽裝的欺騙特性，躲避父權社會的監視與規訓，並達到顛覆的效果。結論將重述Hester的偽裝與顛覆，希冀經由偽裝角度的討論，能為海絲特的討論提供不同的詮釋。

Abstract
In terms of the concepts of disguise and Michel Foucault’s theory about power relations, this thesis aims to explore how Hester Prynne, the heroine in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, adopts disguises as her resistance strategy. The setting of the novel is the male-dominated Puritan society, but Hester reveals her discontentment with the male-female relationship in her days. At that time, Hester’s idea of gender equality would be viewed as immoral and violative to the Puritan law and might bring her a death penalty if the authority perceived it. Therefore, it is necessary for Hester to assume disguises as resistance strategy to hide her true self; by using the deceptive trait of disguises, she not only deceives the surveillance of the Puritan authority but also accomplishes her subversions. Finally, in her “counsel” to those local women suffering from their passion, she secretly spreads her belief in gender equality to them. Through the dissemination of her “immoral” thought, Hester’s influence will remain from one generation to another and always acts as a counteraction against the Puritan patriarchal thought. This counterforce makes power relations unstable and seeks one day to achieve its success.
This thesis consists of five parts. Introduction contains literature reviews, the motivation, and the thesis structure of this thesis. In Chapter One, I illustrate the notions of disguise and Foucault’s concepts of power relations and discipline. In the discussion of the form of disguise, since there are various forms of disguise, I focus only on those relating to Hester’s. In the next chapter, I analyze the background, forms, and purposes of Hester’s disguises and then explore the subversive effect of Hester’s disguises in Chapter Three: I present Hester’s punishment firstly in order to examine how she subverts the punishment forced upon her to a form of resistance, and in this way, I expose Hester’s subversions and how her disguises destabilize power relations. In Conclusion, I recapitulate the main foci of the thesis and re-emphasize my wish to interpret The Scarlet Letter from a different perspective.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ………………………… 1
CHAPTER ONE: ……………………… 19
Disguise and Michel Foucault’s Concepts of Power Relations and Discipline
Ⅰ. Disguise ……………… 19
A. The Definition of Disguise …………… 19
B. The Form of Disguise …………………… 20
C. The Purpose of Disguise ……………… 25
D. A Successful Disguiser ………………… 29
Ⅱ. Michel Foucault’s Concepts of Power Relations and Discipline………… 33
A. Power Relations …………………… 33
a. Power …………………… 33
b. Resistance……………………… 34
B. Discipline ……………………… 35
a. Punishment ……………………36
b. Panopticon …………………… 38
CHAPTER TWO: Hester’s Disguises ……………… 42
Ⅰ. Background ……………………… 42
Ⅱ. Hester’s Disguises ……………………… 45
A. Attitude………………… 45
B. Language………………… 52
C. Clothes……………… 54
Ⅲ. The Purposes of Hester’s Disguises …………… 59
CHAPTER THREE
“The Scarlet Letter Had not Done Its Office”: Hester Prynne’s Punishment and Her Subversions …………………64
Ⅰ. Hester Prynne’s Punishment …………………… 64
A. The Public Punishment …………………… 64
B. The World of Panopticon …………………………… 68
Ⅱ. Hester Prynne’s Subversions …………………72
Ⅲ. Hester as a Successful Disguiser……………………… 81
CONCLUSION ……………………………… 87
WORKS CITED……………………………… 90

Works Cited
Abel, Darrel. “Hawthorne’s Hester.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 300-308.
Baker, Susan. “Personating Persons: Rethinking Shakespearean Disguises.”
Shakespeare Quarterly 43. 3 (1992): 303-316.
Battan, Jesse F. “‘You Cannot Fix The Scarlet Letter on My Breast’: Women Reading, Writing, and Reshaping the Sexual Culture of Victorian America.” Journal of Social History 37. 3 (2004): 601-24.
Baym, Nina. “Plot in The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 402-407.
Bell, Michael Davitt. “Another View of Hester.” Hester Prynne. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1990.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. “Hawthorne’s A-Morality of Compromise.” Representations 24 (1988): 1-27.
---. The Office of The Scarlet Letter. USA: Hopkins UP, 1991.
Bhabha, Homi. "Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” The Location of Culture. London:Routledge,1994. 85-92.
Block, Elizabeth. “Clothing Makes the Man: A Pattern in the Odyssey.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985): 1-11.
Boewe, Charles, and Murray G. Murphey. “Hester Prynne in History.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 205-207.
Brown, Alison Leigh. On Foucault. USA: Wadsworth, 2000.
Brownson, Orestes. “From Brownson’s Quarterly.” The Scarlet Letter and Other Writing. Ed. Leland s. Person. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. 250-253.
Calefato, Patrizia. The Clothed Body. New York: Berg, 2004.
Carton, Evan. “The Prison Door.” Hester Prynne. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1990.
Carpernter, Frederic I. “Scarlet a Minus.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 291-300.
Chang, Young-chin. Hawthorne’s Moral vision in The Scarlet Letter: Subterranean Reminiscence of Maternity. MA thesis. Fu Hsing Kang College, 1992.
Chen, Jing-You. The Scarlet Letter: Nathaniel Hawthorne's Criticism of the Puritan Theocracy. MA thesis. National Taiwan U, 1976.
Colacurcio, Michael J. “Footsteps of Ann Hutchinson: The Context of The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 213-230.
Coxe, Arthur Cleveland. “From Church Review.” The Scarlet Letter and Other Writing. Ed. Leland s. Person. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. 254-262.
Craft-Fairchild, Catherine. Masquerade and Gender. USA: Pennsylvania UP, 1993.
Chung, Li. Guilt and Atonement in The Crucible and The Scarlet Letter. MA thesis. Providence U, 1994.
Dahl, Curtis. “Patterns of Disguise in the Vicar of Wakefield.” ELH 25. 2 (1958): 90-104
Davis, Lloyd. “Guise and Disguise: Rhetoric and Characterization in the English Renaissance.” London: Toronto UP, 1993.
Deusen, Marshall Van. “Narrative Tone in ‘The Custom-House’ and The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 250-255.
Duyckink, A. Evert. “Great Feeling and Discrimination.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 181
Fleischner, Jennifer. “Female Eroticism, Confession, and Interpretation in Nathaniel Hawthorne.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 44. 4 (1990): 514-533.
Flower, Annette C. “Disguise and Identity in Pericles prince of Tyre.” Shakespeare Quarterly 26.1 (1975): 30-41.
Fogle, Richard Harter. “Realm of Being and Dramatic Irony.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 308-315.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage, 1979.
---. Power/Knowledge. Ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980.
---. The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books, 1988.
---. “The Subject and Power.” Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1982.
Gal, Susan. “Language and the Arts of Resistance.” Cultural Anthropology 10.3 (1995): 407-424.
García, Jesús M. Nieto. Rev. of Masquerades: Disguise in Literature in English from the Middle Ages to the Present, ed Jesús López-Peláez. 28 June 2008. <http://www.atlantisjournal.org/Papers/29_2/JesusMNieto2007.pdf>.
Granger, Bruce Ingham. “Arthur Dimmesdale as Tragic Hero.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 19.2 (1964): 197-203.
Gross, Seymour. “‘Solitude, and Love, and Anguish’: The Tragic Design of The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 336-343.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. “The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 3-178.
Heath, Stephen. “Joan Riviere and The Masquerade.” Formations of Fantasy. Ed. Victor Burgin. London: Routledge,1989. 45-61.
Hoffman, Daniel G. “Hester’s Double Providence: The Scarlet Letter and the Green.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 343-349.
Holly, Marcia. “King Lear: The Disguised and Deceived.” Shakespeare Quarterly 24. 4 (1973): 171-180.
Huang, Cheng-chih. Sin and Humanity in The Scarlet Letter. MA thesis. Fu Hsing Kang College, 1997.
Hull, Richard. “Sent Meaning vs. Attached Meaning: Two Interpretations of Interpretation in The Scarlet Letter.” ATQ 14.2 (2001): 141-158.
Johnston, Carolyn. Sexual Power: Feminism and the Family in America. USA: Alabama, 1992.
Katz, Seymour. “‘Character,’ ‘Nature,’ and Allegory in The Scarlet Letter.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 23.1 (1968): 3-17.
Kaye, Frances W. Isolation and Masquerade. New York: P. Lang, 1993.
Kregar, Erika M. “‘Depravity Dress Up in a Fascinating Grab’: Sentimental Motifs and the Seduced Hero(ine) in The Scarlet Letter.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 54.3 (1999): 308-335.
Leverenz, David. “The Ambivalent Narrator of The Scarlet Letter. ” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 413-423.
---. “Mrs. Hawthornes Headache: Reading The Scarlet Letter.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 37.4 (1983): 552-575.
Levy, Leo B. “The Landscape Modes of The Scarlet Letter.” Nineteenth Century Fiction 23 (1969), 377-392.
Liang, Chia-ching. The Double in the Letter A: A Foucauldian Discourse on Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter. MA thesis. Chinese Culture U, 2001.
Loring, George Bailey. “Hester Versus Dimmesdale.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 185-188.
Maclean, Hugh. “Disguise in King Lear: Kent and Edgar.” Shakespeare Quarterly 11.1 (1960): 49-54.
Male, Roy R. “Transformations: Hester and Arthur.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 325-335.
Mills, Sara. Michel Foucault. New York: Routedge, 1994.
Newberry, Fredrick. “Tradition and Disinheritance in The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 231-248.
Person, Leland S., Jr. “Hester's Revenge: The Power of Silence in The Scarlet Letter. ” Nineteenth-Century Literature 43 (1989): 465-83.
Pimple, Kenneth D. “Subtle, but Remorseful Hypocrite: Dimmesdale's Moral Character.” Studies in the Novel 25 (1993): 257-271.
Procter, Paul, ed. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. London: Cambridge UP, 1995.
Ragussis, Michael. “Family Discourse and Fiction in The Scarlet Letter.” ELH. 49.4 (1982): 863-888.
Riviere, Joan. “Womanliness as a Masquerade.” Formations of Fantasy. Ed. Victor Burgin. London: Routledge,1989.
Ryskamp, Charles. “The New England Sources of The Scarlet Letter.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 191-204.
Scott, C. James. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. USA: Yale UP, 1990.
Stanton, Kay. “The Disguises of Shakespeare’s As You Like It.” Iowa State Journal of Research 59 (1985): 295-305.
Sandeen, Ernet. “The Scarlet Letter as a Love Story.” A Norton Critical Edition: The Scarlet Letter. Ed. Seymour Gross, et al. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. 350-361.
Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C Weiner, eds. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.
Smart, Barry. Michel Foucault. London: Routledge, 1995.
Tang, Chai-Mei. Mapping the Political Unconscious in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. MA thesis. Tamkang U, 2004.
The Bible: Authorize King James Version. New York: Oxford, 1998.
Thrailkil, Jane F. “The Scarlet Letter Romantic Medicine.” Studies in American Fiction 34 (2006): 1-31.
Tomc, Sandra. “A Change of Art: Hester, Hawthorne, and the Service of Love.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 56.4 (2002): 466-494.
Tseëlon, Efrat. Masquerade and Identities: Essays on Gender, Sexuality and Marginality. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
Ware, Carolyn E. “Anything to Act Crazy: Cajun Women and Mardi Gras Disguise.” The Journal of American Folklore 114. 452 (2001): 225-247.
Warren, Robert Penn. “Hawthorne Revisited: Some Remarks on Hellfiredness.” Hester Prynne. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1990.
Weinauer, Ellen. “Considering Possession in The Scarlet Letter.” Studies in American Fiction 29 (2001): 93-112.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Llogico-Philosophicus. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Yeh, Shu-ping. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. MA thesis. Tamkang U, 2001.