Skip to content

不作为,是一种有力的态度


不作为,是一种有力的态度



我们翻译这篇文章的理由


当我们面对他人抗辩的时候,无作为应该是最有力的作为。重要的不是我们做什么,而是你没有做什么,出于怎样的理由,以怎样的方式。

——李蕾


👇


收拾情绪,负重前行


作者:Gwilym David Blunt

译者:张松 & 黄倩霞

校对:郭嘉宁

策划:李蕾 & 何翔宇


Sometimes the most powerful act of resistance is to do nothing


抵抗运动中,最有力的作为可能就是不作为


Resistance is a human right. This is why the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that people will be ‘compelled to have recourse, in the last resort, to rebellion’ if human rights are not respected, and why the defence of human rights framed in many United Nations resolutions supports resistance against colonialism and apartheid. It could not be otherwise. If your rights are violated, you must have a recourse. Normally this would be found in the law and the courts but, when faced with severe and intransigent injustice, resistance is that recourse. But when others are resisting, and we are sympathetic to their aims, what should we do? The answer is surprising.

做出抵抗是一项人权。这就是为什么《世界人权宣言》的序言提出,如果人权得不到尊重,人民将“被迫最终诉诸反叛”;也是为什么联合国在很多决议中用捍卫人权作为主张,支持抵抗运动来反对殖民主义和种族隔离。如果你的权利受到侵犯,你必须诉诸某种手段。通常,你可以通过法律和法院的判决来实现;然而,当你遇到严重且无法调和的不公正时,抵抗运动就是你的手段。但当别人在进行抵抗,且我们同意他们的诉求时,我们应该怎么做呢?答案可能会令你惊讶。


From autumn 2018 for about a year, the group known as Extinction Rebellion (XR) staged a number of disruptive protests in the United Kingdom, on London’s bridges and across several city centres, bringing road traffic to a standstill. The protestors were drawing attention to the need for immediate action on the climate emergency. From their perspective, these were acts of resistance, drawing attention to injustice and inaction. What should someone who is sympathetic to this cause and to their action do? If possible, nothing. But there are different ways of doing nothing. It matters that you do nothing in the right way and for the right reasons. Let me explain.

自2018年秋季成立以来,环保组织“反抗灭绝”在英国策划了多起引起混乱的抗议活动,例如占领伦敦的多架桥和市中心的几条公路,导致交通停滞。这些抗议者试图引起大家的注意,来呼吁人们对气候变化开展紧急行动。在他们看来,这些行为就是他们的抵抗运动,让大家关注不公和不作为。如果有人同意他们的诉求和抵抗的手段,他们应当做什么?答案是,如果条件允许,什么都不做。当然,不作为的方式也有很多种,出自正当的理由且使用正当的方法来不作为很重要,下面我来进行解释。

“反抗灭绝”简称XR,成立于英国,是场全球环保运动,旨在透过非暴力的公民不服从来迫使政府采取行动,以避免气候系统的临界点、丧失生物多样性及社会和生态崩溃的风险。Source: Wiki Pedia


Rights imply duties. If you have a right to something, other people owe you certain duties. There are at least three negative duties that are generated by the right of resistance: non-interference, non-obstruction and non-collaboration.

权利也就意味着义务。如果说你有某项权利,那么其他人就对你负有某些义务。在抵抗权利中,至少有三项消极义务:不干预、不阻挠和不合作。


The simplest of these is the duty of non-interference. If a person has the right to do something, there is a fundamental duty not to prevent them from doing that thing. So, if a person is enacting their right to resistance, then bystanders have an obligation to forbear and not to interfere. This seems obvious, but there was a rather shocking instance during the London XR protests where this duty was not respected. In October 2019, protestors stopped London trains from working by climbing on top of carriages. At Canning Town in east London, one protestor was dragged off the roof of a carriage and set upon by commuters. This is a violation of the duty of non-interference. It might be that people were angered by having their day disrupted, but this doesn’t excuse their behaviour. It might be irritating but we have an obligation to do nothing.

其中最简单的一项就是不干预。如果一个人有做某事的权利,那么对等的,就有一项基本的义务是不要阻拦他们去做这件事。所以,如果有人在履行他们的抵抗权,那么旁观者就有义务去克制自己,不去干预。这看上去似乎显而易见,然而当伦敦反抗灭绝组织在抗议时,发生了一件相当令人震惊的事,反抗者的权力就没有受到尊重。2019年10月,抗议者通过爬上车厢顶来阻碍伦敦地铁的运行。在东伦敦的景宁镇站,就有通勤者把一个抗议者从车厢顶拽了下来,并进行了殴打。这就违背了不干预的义务。人们或许因为他们的一天被打乱了而感到气愤,但这也不能构成他们行为的借口。抗议也许会是烦人的,但我们有不作为的义务。


Yet simply not interfering with individuals is not sufficient. Resistance to injustice is often organised. In addition to the obligation not to interfere with individuals, there must also be a duty of non-obstruction to organisations. This is often overlooked, but there are numerous ways in which people can unintentionally obstruct organised resistance. In 1849, Henry ‘Box’ Brown escaped slavery by mailing himself in a box from Virginia to Pennsylvania. It became a sensation in the media, a fact lamented by the abolitionist Frederick Douglass because it effectively closed this path out of slavery: if journalists had been more circumspect, then more people might have escaped slavery by post. In the age of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok, it is easy to inadvertently obstruct organisations fighting injustice. Posting a video or picture on social media could lead to a protestor being identified by the police or to escape routes being closed. We should avoid getting in the way of what those who are performing acts of resistance try to do. Living up to the duty of non-obstruction requires us to be more conscientious about the ways in which we communicate. 

然而仅仅对个体不干预是不够的。对不公的抵抗往往是有组织的,我们除了要保持对个人的不干预,还应该对组织不阻挠。人们常常忽视这点,但无意间阻挠了某些有组织的抵抗行为的例子数不胜数。1849年,“装在盒子里的”亨利·布朗通过从弗吉尼亚州把自己邮寄到宾夕法尼亚州来逃离了奴隶制。媒体纷纷报道,一时引起轰动。废奴主义者弗雷德里克·道格拉斯为此感到痛惜,因为媒体这样的做法直接导致这种逃脱奴隶制的途径就此终结。他写到:如果当初记者更小心一点,那么也许会有更多的人通过邮寄来逃离奴隶制。在如今遍布推特、脸书、阅后即焚的闪聊、抖音的时代,我们更容易在不经意间阻挠对不公的反抗组织行为。随意在网上上传照片或视频,就可能会让抗议者更容易被警察发现,或者导致逃跑通道被关闭。我们应当避免干扰抵抗者的计划。要履行不阻挠义务,我们就要更加认真对待我们沟通的方式。


The final negative duty is that of non-collaboration with agencies that are suppressing resistance. If we shouldn’t inadvertently obstruct resistance, it follows that we shouldn’t actively help to suppress it. Agencies that are engaged in suppressing resistance often depend upon third-party assistance. As the academic Juan Espíndola found in his research on the German Democratic Republic of 1949-90, the wide network of ‘unofficial coworkers’ who informed on dissidents and provided logistical support to the Stasi were referred to as the state’s ‘respiratory organs’. Without collaboration, unjust regimes suffocate. We might think that we aren’t pressured to collaborate like this today, but one might look at Apple’s decision in 2019 to remove an app that sought to inform prodemocracy protestors in Hong Kong where the police were concentrating and using tear gas. It is possible that, as resistance to climate change grows, ‘liberal democratic’ states might employ similar pressures. The rule is simple: don’t snitch.

最后一项消极义务是,不与镇压抵抗的机构合作。我们不应该无意中阻碍抵抗,也意味着我们不应该积极帮助镇压抵抗。参与镇压抵抗的机构通常需要依赖第三方协助。学者胡安·埃斯潘多拉(JuanEspíndola)在对1949至1990年德国民主共和国的研究中发现,有一张由“非官方合作者”形成的巨网,它向斯塔西(前民主德国国家安全局)揭露异见者并为其提供后勤支持,被称为德国的“呼吸系统”。没有合作,不公的政权就会窒息而死。或许今天,我们认为自己并未面临迫使我们协作的重压,那就看看苹果在2019年做出的一项决定:删除一个通知香港民主抗议者警方集中力量及使用催泪瓦斯所在地的应用程序。随着对气候变化的抵抗愈演愈烈,自由民主国家可能会使用类似的施压手段。我们应该遵守的规则很简单:不要告密。


So we have at least these three obligations not to do things. Is there anything else we have a duty not to do? One option would be to follow the example of the philosopher Henry David Thoreau, who in 1846 stopped paying his taxes in response to the US government’s unprovoked war with Mexico and continued support for slavery. Thoreau refused to support a state so immersed in injustice. Ought we do the same in relation to the climate emergency? At this stage, I would say no. Democratic states still provide sufficient protection of human rights to warrant some continued support, though this could erode as the climate emergency escalates.

因此,我们至少有三项不作为的义务。 还有其他事情不应该做吗? 一种选择是效法哲学家亨利·戴维·梭罗(Henry David Thoreau),1846年他停止缴税,以此反对美国政府在墨西哥无端挑起战争和持续支持奴隶制的行为。当国家陷入极度不公时,梭罗拒绝帮助维持它的运转。 如今面对气候变化危机,我们应该做相同的事吗? 在这个阶段,我会说不。因为民主国家仍然充分保护并承诺将继续维护人权,尽管这可能会随着气候危机升级而受到冲击。


So now that you know how to exercise your obligation to ‘do nothing’, you must begin to (not) do it. There will no doubt be many opportunities, now that we’ve welcomed a new decade of the Anthropocene and an area nearly the size of England burned due to drought worldwide, exacerbated by the rising temperatures produced by climate change. Recently, the eyes of the world were on Australia because it is the first advanced postindustrial state that was severely affected by and unable to contain (or, within its leadership, even acknowledge) the climate emergency. One hopes that governments around the world will rise to this existential threat, but the prevarication, truculence and unthinking optimism that characterised the reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic in many developed nations doesn’t inspire much hope. Left unchecked, the effect of climate change will continue to spread, and the thousands of Australians who took to the streets in protest in January 2020 will inspire others in acts of resistance as the emergency continues. If we are unable to join protestors, we still have duties to support them with our conscious inactions. It’s not just what you do that matters, but what you don’t do, too.

现在你已经知道如何履行“不作为”的义务,那么就必须开始(不)作为。如今我们迎来了人类世的新十年,世界范围内的干旱面积已接近一个英格兰,气候变化造成的温度升高又进一步加重旱灾,因此毫无疑问,未来不作为的机会一定会有很多。最近,全世界的目光聚焦在澳大利亚,因为它是第一个受气候变化严重影响且无法遏制(甚至得到领导人的承认)的后工业化发达国家。人们希望世界各地的政府都能够应对气候变化带来的生存威胁,但此次在抗击新冠肺炎疫情中,许多发达国家却互相推诿,激进好战且盲目乐观,令人大失所望。如果任其发展,气候变化的影响将继续蔓延。随着气候危机升级,2020年1月,成千上万的澳大利亚人抵抗游行,这会激发许多其他人参与进来。即便我们无法加入示威者,但我们仍然有义务通过有意识的不作为来支持他们。有所为很重要,有所不为也同样重要。

Anthropocene a proposed term for the present geological epoch (from the time of the Industrial Revolution onwards), during which humanity has begun to have a significant impact on the environment 人类世; 人类自工业革命以来的活动对环境的影响可成立一个新地质时代的理论




不作为,是一种有力的态度

  • 本文原载于 Aeon

  • 原文链接:https://aeon.co/ideas/its-better-to-focus-on-where-you-are-going-than-how-you-are-feeling



一、了解取经号 | 我们是谁,在做什么,如何加入
二、学习贴士 | 如何打印输出PDF如何使用微信读书订阅取经号
三、翻译服务 | 咨询邮箱:[email protected]
四、社交媒体 | 微信公众号:取经号;微博:取经号JTW
五、译文归档 | 访问网站:qujinghao.com
六、学习社群 | 翻译社(暂停中)


不作为,是一种有力的态度




Be First to Comment

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注