评论
打印
Let's get this out of the way.
让我们跳出思想的局限。
I'm here because I wrote a book about civility,
我今天在这里演讲是因为我写了一本关于文明的书，
and because that book came out right around the 2016 American presidential election,
这本书出版时正值2016年美国总统大选，
I started getting lots of invitations to come and talk about civility and why we need more of it in American politics. So great.
之后我收到了各方的邀请去参与讨论文明，讨论为什么美国政治更需要文明。感觉非常棒。
The only problem was that I had written that book about civility because I was convinced that civility is ... bullshit.
唯一的问题就是，我写了一本有关文明的书是因为我相信文明就是...胡扯。
Now, that may sound like a highly uncivil thing to say,
现在，这件事听起来很不文明，
and lucky for you, and for my publisher, I did eventually come to change my mind.
你们很幸运，我的出版商也很幸运，最后我的想法变了。
In the course of writing that book and studying the long history of civility and religious tolerance in the 17th century,
在写这本书、研究人类悠久的文明史，研究17世纪的宗教宽容的过程中，
I came to discover that there is a virtue of civility, and far from being bullshit,
我发现文明是一种美德，而不是胡说八道。
it's actually absolutely essential, especially for tolerant societies,
文明实际上很有必要，尤其对于宽容性社会，
so societies like this one, that promise not only to protect diversity
像这样的社会不仅保护意见多样性，
but also the heated and sometimes even hateful disagreements that that diversity inspires.
还保护多样性引发的激烈的、有时甚至会上升到仇恨的分歧。
You see, the thing about disagreement is that there is a reason that "disagreeable" is a synonym for "unpleasant."
分歧会上升有一个原因，那就是“disagreeable”是“unpleasant”的同义词。
As the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out all the way back in 1642,
就像英国哲学家托马斯·霍布斯在1642年所指出的，
that's because the mere act of disagreement is offensive.
分歧的行为往往是无礼的。
And Hobbes is still right. It works like this:
现在霍布斯的说法仍然正确。它是这样的：
so, if you and I disagree, and I'm right, because I always am, how am I to make sense of the fact that you are so very, very wrong?
如果你不认同我的意见，我还是正确的，因为我总是正确的，我怎么才能让你相信你错得非常离谱？
It couldn't possibly be that you've just come to a different conclusion in good faith?
你不可能仅仅因为善意而给出了不一样的结论吧？
No, you must be up to something, you must be stupid, bigoted, interested. Maybe you're insane.
不，还有其他原因，你愚蠢、偏执、有成见。你也许疯了。
And the same goes the other way. Right?
对方想的也是一样。对吧？
So the mere fact of your disagreeing with me is implicitly an insult not only to my views, but to my intelligence, too.
所以分歧这一事实本身就是一种侮辱，侮辱我的看法，侮辱我的智商。
And things only get worse when the disagreements at stake are the ones that we somehow consider to be fundamental,
当分歧处于利害攸关的时候，我们就会认为这些分歧是根本性的，
whether to our worldviews or to our identities. You know the kinds of disagreement I mean.
不论是世界观还是我们的身份，事情就更糟了。我说的就是这种分歧。
One doesn't discuss religion or politics or increasingly, the politics of popular culture, at the dinner table,
在餐桌上，我们不讨论宗教、政治，也不讨论大众文化的政治，
because these are the disagreements, these are the things that people really, seriously disagree about,
因为这些就是分歧，就是人们真正产生严重分歧的事情，
and they define themselves against their opponents in the controversy.
他们会与反对者陷入争辩，为自己辩护。
But of course those fundamental disagreements are precisely the ones that tolerant societies like the United States propose to tolerate,
不过，当然，这些根本性的分歧恰恰是像美国这样的宽容社会所提出的应该容忍的分歧，
which perhaps explains why, historically, at least,
这或许可以解释为什么在历史上，
tolerant societies haven't been the happy-clappy communities of difference that you sometimes hear about.
宽容性社会并不是你有时听到的接受分歧的快乐社区。
No, they tend to be places where people have to hold their noses and rub along together despite their mutual contempt.
不，尽管人们相互蔑视，人们往往还是捏着鼻子不得不勉强生活在一个社区。
That's what I learned from studying religious tolerance in early modern England and America.
这就是我研究现代英国和美国的早期宗教宽容所了解到的。
And I also learned that the virtue that makes that un-murderous coexistence, if you will, possible, is the virtue of civility,
而且我还了解到，这种非谋杀式共存的美德就是文明的美德，
because civility makes our disagreements tolerable
因为文明使我们的分歧得以包容，
so that we can share a life together even if we don't share a faith -- religious, political or otherwise.
这样即使我们政治或宗教或者其它类似的信仰不同，我们也可以共享生活。
Still, I couldn't help but notice that when most people talk about civility today
然而，我还是不禁注意到大多数人在谈论今天的文明，
and boy, do they talk about civility a lot -- they seem to have something else in mind.
男孩子们也是，他们经常谈论文明，他们还有一些其他的想法。
So if civility is the virtue that makes it possible to tolerate disagreement so that we can actually engage with our opponents,
所以如果文明是使人们能够包容分歧的美德，那我们就可以真正与反对者共处，
talking about civility seems to be mainly a strategy of disengagement.
谈论文明似乎主要是一种脱离的策略。
It's a little bit like threatening to take your ball and go home when the game isn't going your way.
这有点像在比赛不顺的时候，威胁要拿你的球回家。
Because the funny thing about incivility is that it's always the sin of our opponents. It's funny.
因为不文明的有趣之处在于，它始终是我们反对者的罪行。很有意思。
When it comes to our own bad behavior, well, we seem to develop sudden-onset amnesia,
如果是我们自己行为不当，那么我们似乎会突发健忘症，
or we can always justify it as an appropriate response to the latest outrage from our opponents.
或者我们美其名曰为恰当回应反对者的愤怒。
So, "How can I be civil to someone who is set out to destroy everything I stand for? And by the way, they started it."
那么，“如果有人打算破坏我的立场，我怎么才能体现文明呢？顺便说一句，他们已经这样做了。”
It's all terrifically convenient.
其实超级简单。
Also convenient is the fact that most of today's big civility talkers
同样简单的一个事实，当今大多数的文明者们，
tend to be quite vague and fuzzy when it comes to what they think civility actually entails.
在讨论文明的具体内容时意见模棱两可。
We're told that civility is simply a synonym for respect, for good manners, for politeness,
我们被告知文明是尊重、礼仪和礼貌的同义词，
but at the same time, it's clear that to accuse someone of incivility is much, much worse than calling them impolite,
但同时有一点很清楚，指责他人不文明比指责他人不礼貌更严重，
because to be uncivil is to be potentially intolerable in a way that merely being rude isn't.
因为不文明比粗鲁可能更让人无法接受。
So to call someone uncivil, to accuse them of incivility,
所以称别人不文明，指责他们粗言暴行，
is a way of communicating that they are somehow beyond the pale, that they're not worth engaging with at all.
是一种完全无法接受的交流方式，根本不值得参与。
So here's the thing: civility isn't bullshit,
所以是这样的：文明不是废话，
it's precious because it's the virtue that makes fundamental disagreement not only possible but even sometimes occasionally productive.
它之所以珍贵，是因为正是这种美德使得根本的分歧不仅可能存在，有时甚至还会产生积极的影响。
It's precious, but it's also really, really difficult.
文明很可贵，却真的很难做到。
Civility talk, on the other hand, well, that's really easy, really easy, and it also is almost always complete bullshit,
另一方面，文明交谈非常非常简单，而且几乎总是瞎扯淡，
which makes things slightly awkward for me as I continue to talk to you about civility.
这就让我接着和大家谈论文明显得有点尴尬。
Anyway, we tend to forget it, but politicians and intellectuals have been warning us for decades
无论如何，我们往往忘记这一点，但是几十年来政治家和知识分子一直警告我们，
now that the United States is facing a crisis of civility,
美国正面临一场文明危机，
and they've tended to blame that crisis on technological developments, on things like cable TV, talk radio, social media.
他们倾向于认为这是科技发展的结果，包括有线电视、广播脱口秀和社交媒体的发展。
But any historian will tell you that there never was a golden age of disagreement, let alone good feelings, not in American politics.
但任何一位历史学家都会告诉你，美国政治史上从来没有一个属于分歧的黄金时代，更别提美好的情感了。
In my book, though, I argue that the first modern crisis of civility actually began about 500 years ago,
但是在我的书中，我认为第一次现代文明危机实际上是在大约500年前开始的，
when a certain professor of theology named Martin Luther
当时一位叫马丁·路德的神学教授
took advantage of a recent advancement in communications technology, the printing press,
利用印刷机这种通讯技术的最新发展，
to call the Pope the Antichrist, and thus inadvertently launch the Protestant Reformation.
称教皇为反基督徒，无意中发动了宗教改革。
So think of the press, if you will, as the Twitter of the 16th century, and Martin Luther as the original troll.
如果你愿意，可以把印刷机认为是16世纪的推特，马丁·路德就是最初煽动者。
And I'm not exaggerating here.
我没有夸张。
He once declared himself unable to pray without at the same time cursing his "anti-Christian," i.e. Catholic, opponents.
他曾宣称自己无法祷告，除非一边祷告一边诅咒他的“反基督徒”，即天主教徒和反对者。
And of course, those Catholic opponents clutched their pearls and called for civility then, too,
当然，那些天主教的反对者震惊之余，也呼吁文明，
but all the while, they gave as good as they got with traditional slurs like "heretic,"
但一直以来，他们都在用“异教徒”这样的传统诋毁语来做出回应，
and, worst of all, "Protestant," which began in the 16th century as an insult.
最糟糕的是，从16世纪开始，“新教徒”成为了一种侮辱。
The thing about civility talk, then as now, was that you could call out your opponent for going low,
和现在一样，文明交流可以让你的反对者显得低下，
and then take advantage of the moral high ground to go as low or lower,
然后利用道德高地，使其相比之前更加低下，
because calling for civility sets up the speaker as a model of decorum
因为对文明的呼唤树立了说话人的礼仪典范，
while implicitly, subtly stigmatizing anyone with the temerity to disagree as uncivil.
含蓄、巧妙地将那些冒昧地提出异议的人打上不文明行为的烙印。
And so civility talk in the 17th century becomes a really effective way for members of the religious establishment
因此，17世纪的文明交流成为了宗教团体成员的一种有效工具，
to silence, suppress, exclude dissenters outside of the established church, especially when they spoke out against the status quo.
对异议者进行压制、抑制，并排斥在圣公会之外，特别是当他们公然反对教会现状时。
So Anglican ministers could lecture atheists on the offensiveness of their discourse.
圣公会的传道士可以就无神论者的言辞冒犯展开训诫。
Everyone could complain about the Quakers for refusing to doff and don their hats or their "uncouth" practice of shaking hands.
每个人都可以对贵格会教徒拒绝脱衣戴帽，或者对他们“粗野的”握手礼进行抱怨。
But those accusations of incivility pretty soon became pretexts for persecution.
但是那些不文明的指责很快成为迫害的借口。
So far, so familiar, right? We see that strategy again and again.
到目前为止，很熟悉，对不对？我们一次又一次看到这个策略。
It's used to silence civil rights protesters in the 20th century.
20世纪，它被用来使民权抗议者保持沉默。
And I think it explains why partisans on both sides of the aisle keep reaching for this, frankly, antiquated, early modern language of civility precisely
我想这就是为什么两党成员都在追求这个，老实说已经过时的、近代早期的文明语言，
when they want to communicate that certain people and certain views are beyond the pale,
当他们想要沟通的时候，有些人有些观点让他们无法接受，
but they want to save themselves the trouble of actually making an argument.
但是他们想要自己避免陷入引起一场争论的麻烦当中。
So no wonder skeptics like me tend to roll our eyes when the calls for conversational virtue begin,
因此，难怪像我这样的怀疑论者在呼吁对话美德时，往往会翻白眼，
because instead of healing our social and political divisions, it seems like so much civility talk is actually making the problem worse.
因为这不但没有治愈我们的社会和政治分歧，太多的文明交流实际上让问题更糟。
It's saving us the trouble of actually speaking to each other,
它避免了相互交流的麻烦，
allowing us to speak past each other or at each other while signaling our superior virtue and letting the audience know which side we're on.
让我们可以间接交流或相互直接交流，同时表明我们的优越品质，并让听众知道我们的立场。
And given this, I think one might be forgiven, as I did, for assuming that because so much civility talk is bullshit,
鉴于此，我认为人们可以释怀，就像我做的一样，因为这么多文明言论都是胡说八道，
well then, the virtue of civility must be bullshit, too.
文明的美德也是胡说八道。
But here, again, I think a little historical perspective goes a long way.
但同时，我认为从历史角度考虑，这大有益处。
Because remember, the same early modern crisis of civility that launched the Reformation also gave birth to tolerant societies,
因为，记住，相同的早期现代文明危机，引发了宗教改革，也催生了宽容性社会，
places like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and indeed, eventually the United States,
像罗德岛州、宾夕法尼亚州，事实上，最终是美国，
places that at least aspired to protect disagreement as well as diversity, and what made that possible was the virtue of civility.
那些至少希望保护分歧和多样性的地方，使之成为可能的是文明的美德。
What made disagreement tolerable, what it made it possible for us to share a life, even when we didn't share a faith, was a virtue,
是什么让分歧得以容忍，让我们有分享生活的可能性，即使我们信仰不同，是美德，
but one, I think, that is perhaps less aspirational and a lot more confrontational than the one that people who talk about civility a lot today tend to have in mind.
但我认为，相比于当今人们谈论的文明而言，或许这种美德不太被人赏识，更可能引发冲突。
So I like to call that virtue "mere civility."
所以我喜欢称这种美德为“基本文明”。
You may know it as the virtue that allows us to get through our relations with an ex-spouse,
你可能知道它是一种美德，它帮助我们处理与前妻或前夫的关系、
or a bad neighbor, not to mention a member of the other party.
与让人讨厌的邻居的关系，更不用说与对立党派成员的关系。
Because to be merely civil is to meet a low bar grudgingly, and that, again, makes sense,
因为基本文明只需满足一个较低标准，而且这又是合理的，
because civility is a virtue that's meant to help us disagree,
因为文明是一种旨在帮助我们持有异议的美德，
and as Hobbes told us all those centuries ago, disagreeable means unpleasant for a reason.
正如霍布斯在几个世纪前告诉我们的那样，意见不同即意味着不愉快。
But if it isn't bullshit, what exactly is civility or mere civility? What does it require?
但如果它不是废话，那文明或者基本文明到底是什么呢？它需要什么条件？
Well, to start, it is not and cannot be the same thing as being respectful or polite,
嗯，首先，它和尊敬或者礼貌不是一回事，
because we need civility precisely when we're dealing with those people
因为我们只是需要文明来应付那些
that we find it the most difficult, or maybe even impossible, to respect.
我们发现很难尊重或者不可能尊重的人，
Similarly, being civil can't be the same as being nice,
同样，文明也不是友好，
because being nice means not telling people what you really think about them or their wrong, wrong views.
因为友好意味着不去告知别人你对他们，或者他们的错误、错误的观点的真实想法。
No, being civil means speaking your mind, but to your opponent's face, not behind her back.
不是这样的，文明是指当着反对者的面，而不是在她背后，说出自己的想法。
Being merely civil means not pulling our punches,
基本文明是指既要无所保留，
but at the same time, it means maybe not landing all those punches all at once,
但同时也不要一下子说得太狠。
because the point of mere civility is to allow us to disagree, to disagree fundamentally,
因为基本文明允许我们有分歧，有根本的分歧，
but to do so without denying or destroying the possibility of a common life tomorrow with the people that we think are standing in our way today.
同时不否定、不破坏与那些如今阻碍我们的人未来共同生活的可能性。
And in that sense, I think civility is actually closely related to another virtue, the virtue of courage.
这样看来，我认为文明与另一种美德关系很密切，那就是勇敢的美德。
So mere civility is having the courage to make yourself disagreeable, and to stay that way,
基本文明就是有勇气让自己意见不同并且保持下去，
but to do so while staying in the room and staying present to your opponents.
不论是一个人在屋子里还是当着对手的面。
And it also means that, sometimes, calling bullshit on people's civility talk is really the only civil thing to do.
这也意味着，有时候我们称别人的文明交流为胡说八道，实际上是唯一要做的文明的事。
At least that's what I think.
这就是我的观点。
But look, if I've learned anything from studying the long history of religious tolerance in the 17th century, it's this:
但是，如果说我从研究17世纪宗教宽容的历史中学到了什么的话，那就是：
if you're talking about civility as a way to avoid an argument,
如果你把谈论文明当作一个避免争论的方式，
to isolate yourself in the more agreeable company of the like-minded who already agree with you,
将自己拘囿于与你想法一致的志同道合者中间，
if you find yourself never actually speaking to anyone who really, truly, fundamentally disagrees with you,
如果你发现自己从来没有真正地和那些根本不同意你的人交谈过，
well, you're doing civility wrong. Thank you.
那么你就没有真正做到文明。谢谢。
