本研究旨在藉由勾勒Bakhtin 眾聲喧嘩概念的倫理立場反思其倫理困境。首先，透過Bakhtin 所爬梳的話語型態變遷的社會政治史，本研究指出眾聲喧嘩的倫理立場乃是一種對於主體存在與政治民主的積極嚮往。其次，透過批判性地檢視「詩語vs. 小說語言」與「向心力vs. 離心力」這兩組對立性的命題，並輔以施明德質疑蔡英文性傾向的恐同論述建構作為例說，本研究主張由於眾聲喧嘩的內涵仍有進一步釐清的空間，以致於在對具體現實的批判分析上無以區辨眾聲喧嘩與多聲並存的差異，亦無法進一步辨識向心力與離心力在糾結難纏之際所體現的語言暴力和歧視。但這卻是至為重要的關鍵議題。

This paper aims to reflect upon the ethical dilemma of Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of heteroglossia by outlining its ethics theoretically. First, it tried to clarify the ethical standpoint of heteroglossia by examining what socio-political history Bakhtin observed from the types and modifications of reported speech and how Bakhtin refracted his imagination of subject formation and the political. Second, it exposed the ethical dilemma of heteroglossia and argued its inefficiency to analyze the discourse of homophobia in Taiwan by criticizing the theoretical lacuna of two oppositional terminology, that is, poetic language vs. discourse in the novel; centripetal forces vs. centrifugal forces. Based on the research
findings, this paper concluded that the difference between Bakhtinian
heteroglossia and multi-voicedness should be clarified in detail. Therefore, the linguistic violence and discrimination inherent in multi-voicedness might be pinpointed for the critical analysis on life world furthermore.