[[abstract]]The purpose of the thesis is to take the labor “ Chi-Tou T” for example to offer the multi-possibilities of lesbian subject patterns though under the influence of the mainstream of urban-central lesbian theory. Therefore, the thesis tries to reconstruct the image of the non-urban, laborious lesbians from the following dimensions. First of all is to describe the process of the formation the lesbian community, then to discuss the difference of how the “ Chi-Tou T” and “Urban Lesbians” aggregate and develop their own communities. We further explore that by what way the “Chi-Tou T “ build the Lesbian space through the interaction in the community. Third, by comparing the differences of their identifications in multiple spaces, we can clear out the differences of the roles of T and P for “Chi-Tou T” and “non-T,P”. And then move to understand the reasons for the differences of their identifications. In view of this, the research is carried out with qualitative case study by the methods of observational involvement and profound interview. The 11-months field research finds out that, first, “Chi-Tou T” borders their world with the same first name, slogans, the same mid name or the blood-drinking swear ( the members sip the blood in a container got form each of them, and swear to be brothers.) . They cherish the spirit of brotherhood, set up the rules as those in a gang, emphasizing the importance of helping each other and the leadership as the factor for maintaining the community.It’s obvious that the urban lesbians form their community by journals, networks and T bras while “Chi-Tou T” by their brotherhood. Second, in their interaction, we know the “Chi-Tou T” would have symbolic tattoos or male-like physical to form the landscape to strengthen their identification, implying a lesbian space both overthrowing and copying of the heterosexual patriarchy. “Chi-Tou T” don’t always resist the oppressions in multiple spaces. This non-continuous resistance in different places cause different identities in multiple spaces. Furthermore, the comparison between the differences of their identification in multiple spaces result from totally different discourse. It’s found that the difference between town and country and social classes are the main factors for their different ways of aggregations. Besides, the difference of their classes and between town and country also lead to their different powers to manipulate the resources. This is also the main cause of the different formation of their subjects.
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.