Skip to content

暴行之下



我们翻译这篇文章的理由


当我们说起针对弱势群体的暴行,常常提起的一个词就是物化。也就是说,施暴者认为对方在感知或智力上不如自己,因而为所欲为。假如果真如此,只需摆出事实,纠正其错误认知即可,但很显然,事情远远没有这么简单。残忍的真相是,施暴者可能完全明白对方是活生生的人。只有在同样面对人时,人性最黑暗的一面才会显露出来。

——郭嘉宁


👇


暴行之下


作者: Paul Bloom

   译者:张煜成 & 何翔宇

校对:王宇琪

策划:郭嘉宁 & 田阳光


The Root of All Cruelty

Perpetrators of violence, we’re told, dehumanize their victims. The truth is worse.

暴行之下

我们通常以为,在暴力犯罪人眼中,受害者被抹去了人性,但真相藏在更深的黑暗中。


In 331 BC, something was wrong with Rome. Across the city, swathes of eminent men were succumbing to sickness, and practically all of them were dying. The losses were as baffling as they were alarming.

公元前331年,罗马发生了一件奇怪的事情。城里大批大批的优秀男子都病倒了,甚至几乎所有病人都要死了。这对罗马来说是种巨大的损失,整件事令人既震惊又疑惑。


A recent episode of the dystopian television series “Black Mirror” begins with a soldier hunting down and killing hideous humanoids called roaches. It’s a standard science-fiction scenario, man against monster, but there’s a twist: it turns out that the soldier and his cohort have brain implants that make them see the faces and bodies of their targets as monstrous, to hear their pleas for mercy as noxious squeaks. When our hero’s implant fails, he discovers that he isn’t a brave defender of the human race—he’s a murderer of innocent people, part of a campaign to exterminate members of a despised group akin to the Jews of Europe in the nineteen-forties.

在反乌托邦式剧集《黑镜》中有这样一段情节:一名士兵受命捕猎、宰杀着一种被称为“蟑螂”的丑陋的类人生物。人兽之争向是经典科幻设定,可剧情反转在:士兵们被植入了脑部装置,使得在他们眼中,被宰杀对象变得面目可怖,形神扭曲;在他们耳中,被害者绝望的求饶变成了凄厉的嚣叫。当主角的植入物失效后,他才发现:自己从来都不是人类的守护者,而是屠戮无辜的刽子手,一如二十世纪四十年代欧洲对犹太人的赶尽杀绝,自己也是对一个处于社会鄙视链底层的族群实施灭绝政策的行刑者。


The philosopher David Livingstone Smith, commenting on this episode on social media, wondered whether its writer had read his book “Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others” (St. Martin’s). It’s a thoughtful and exhaustive exploration of human cruelty, and the episode perfectly captures its core idea: that acts such as genocide happen when one fails to appreciate the humanity of others.

哲学家大卫·利文斯通·史密斯(David Livingstone Smith)在社交媒体上对这集做了评价,他很好奇编剧是否阅读过自己的作品《人性之下——我们为何贬低、奴役、毁灭他人》(Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others)。这本书对人类的残忍进行了深刻而详尽的思索,而《黑镜》中的这一集完美地抓住了其核心:当一个人未能共情他人的人性时,才会发生种族灭绝之类的残忍行为。


One focus of Smith’s book is the attitudes of slave owners; the seventeenth-century missionary Morgan Godwyn observed that they believed the Negroes, “though in their Figure they carry some resemblances of Manhood, yet are indeed no Men” but, rather, “Creatures destitute of Souls, to be ranked among Brute Beasts, and treated accordingly.” Then there’s the Holocaust. 

同时,这本书还关注了奴隶主的认知倾向:根据十七世纪传教士摩根·戈德温(Morgan Godwyn)的观察:奴隶主认为黑人奴隶“拥有类人的外貌,可终究非人,因为他们缺乏灵魂,所以实质上应该与低贱的野兽为伍。”之后,便发生了种族屠杀。


Like many Jews my age, I was raised with stories of gas chambers, gruesome medical experiments, and mass graves—an evil that was explained as arising from the Nazis’ failure to see their victims as human. In the words of the psychologist Herbert C. Kelman, “The inhibitions against murdering fellow human beings are generally so strong that the victims must be deprived of their human status if systematic killing is to proceed in a smooth and orderly fashion.” The Nazis used bureaucratic euphemisms such as “transfer” and “selection” to sanitize different forms of murder.

像我这个年纪的犹太人,成长中总伴随着毒气室、人体实验、乱葬岗这样惨痛的故事。人们对此的解读总是纳粹对于犹太人的非人化。心理学家赫伯特·C·凯尔曼(Herbert C. Kelman)解释道:“人对于屠戮同类通常有很强的克制,以至于要做到对同类高效、系统、流水线般的宰杀,需要先将被害者的同类身份剥离。”而纳粹正是利用“物种转换”、“天然选择”这类委婉的官腔为屠杀“洗白”。


Early psychological research on dehumanization looked at what made the Nazis different from the rest of us. But psychologists now talk about the ubiquity of dehumanization. Nick Haslam, at the University of Melbourne, and Steve Loughnan, at the University of Edinburgh, provide a list of examples, including some painfully mundane ones: “Outraged members of the public call sex offenders animals. Psychopaths treat victims merely as means to their vicious ends. The poor are mocked as libidinous dolts. Passersby look through homeless people as if they were transparent obstacles. Dementia sufferers are represented in the media as shuffling zombies.” 

对“非人化”的早期心理学研究着眼于纳粹的特殊性,而当代心理学家更强调这一现象的普遍性,墨尔本大学的尼克·哈斯拉姆(Nick Haslam)和爱丁堡大学的史蒂夫·劳南(Steve Loughnan)为这一结论提供了一系列论据,其中一些普通得十分沉重:愤怒的大众怒骂性犯罪者为禽兽;精神变态者仅仅将受害者视为到达邪恶尽头的工具;社会底层民众被当做只有淫邪思想的蠢货;路人将流浪者当成透明的障碍物;痴呆症患者在媒体偏见中被刻画为行尸走肉。


The thesis that viewing others as objects or animals enables our very worst conduct would seem to explain a great deal. Yet there’s reason to think that it’s almost the opposite of the truth.

视他者为物体或禽兽使我们暴露出人性的残忍和暴虐,这种观点似乎足够解释很多问题。可我们有理由相信,事实与之恰好相反。


At some European soccer games, fans make monkey noises at African players and throw bananas at them. Describing Africans as monkeys is a common racist trope, and might seem like yet another example of dehumanization. But plainly these fans don’t really think the players are monkeys; the whole point of their behavior is to disorient and humiliate. To believe that such taunts are effective is to assume that their targets would be ashamed to be thought of that way—which implies that, at some level, you think of them as people after all.

在一些欧洲足球比赛上,球迷会对着非裔球员扔香蕉、模仿猴子的声音。这种把非洲人描述成猴子的比喻是很常见的种族歧视,表面上也是非人化的另一例证。但显然这些球迷并不会真的把球员当做猴子,他们的目的也只是羞辱和丑化他人,因为如果羞辱对象的认知能力并不能理解你的举动,羞辱的有效性就会大打折扣。所以从一定程度上,施暴者仍然将羞辱对象当成人类看待。


Consider what happened after Hitler annexed Austria, in 1938. Timothy Snyder offers a haunting description in “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”:

The next morning the “scrubbing parties” began. Members of the Austrian SA, working from lists, from personal knowledge, and from the knowledge of passersby, identified Jews and forced them to kneel and clean the streets with brushes. This was a ritual humiliation. Jews, often doctors and lawyers or other professionals, were suddenly on their knees performing menial labor in front of jeering crowds. 

对于1938年纳粹占领奥地利后的所作所为,蒂莫西·斯奈德(Timothy Snyder)在其作品《黑土地——大屠杀的历史伤疤与警示》(Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning)中写到:“第二天早上,‘清扫狂欢’开始了,奥地利‘纳粹冲锋队’的成员通过名单、个人印象和路人的指控,找到犹太人并强迫他们跪在地上用刷子洗刷街面。这种近乎仪式性的人格侮辱,让很多医生、律师等职业工作者一夜之间变成卑贱的奴仆,跪倒在地,受人欺凌。”


The Jews who were forced to scrub the streets—not to mention those subjected to far worse degradations—were not thought of as lacking human emotions. Indeed, if the Jews had been thought to be indifferent to their treatment, there would have been nothing to watch here; the crowd had gathered because it wanted to see them suffer. The logic of such brutality is the logic of metaphor: to assert a likeness between two different things holds power only in the light of that difference. The sadism of treating human beings like vermin lies precisely in the recognition that they are not.

犹太人所承受的暴行,并不是因为在纳粹眼中,他们缺乏人类的情感;若是他们对自己的处境毫无感知能力,无动于衷且无法做出回应,施暴者的施暴欲望便会降低,冷漠的围观者也会作鸟兽散。这种暴行的逻辑其实是一种隐喻:当你将截然不同的两者,扭曲地转化成一种事物,你所追求的其实是这种反差给你带来的满足。视人为草芥的施虐快感恰恰来源于人是人。


What about violence more generally? Some evolutionary psychologists and economists explain assault, rape, and murder as rational actions, benefitting the perpetrator or the perpetrator’s genes. No doubt some violence—and a reputation for being willing and able to engage in violence—can serve a useful purpose, particularly in more brutal environments. On the other hand, much violent behavior can be seen as evidence of a loss of control. It’s Criminology 101 that many crimes are committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and that people who assault, rape, and murder show less impulse control in other aspects of their lives as well. In the heat of passion, the moral enormity of the violent action loses its purchase.

那么更为广义的暴力呢?一些进化论心理学家和经济学家解释道:袭击、强暴、谋杀其实都是理性行为,因为这种行为对施暴者的原始基因是有利的。特别是在一些严峻的环境中,使用暴力的意愿与能力越强,个体的处境就会变得更好。但从另一方面看,实施暴力其实是失控的体现。犯罪学基础课程就提到,很多犯罪是由酒精毒品诱导的,那些实施暴行的人对生活中的其他方面也展现出较弱的控制力。所以在激情犯罪中,施暴者的自我道德约束已不复存在。


But “Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships” (Cambridge), by the anthropologist Alan Fiske and the psychologist Tage Rai, argues that these standard accounts often have it backward. In many instances, violence is neither a cold-blooded solution to a problem nor a failure of inhibition; most of all, it doesn’t entail a blindness to moral considerations. 

在人类学家艾伦·菲斯克(Alan Fiske)和心理学家泰格·莱(Tage Rai)完成,剑桥大学出版的《正义的暴力——那些以创造、维持、结束、捍卫社会契约为目标的伤害与杀戮》(Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships)中,作者提出,本文中的上述解释其实都与真相背道而驰。暴力在很多情况下,既非冷血的漠然,也非因为不能自已,更不存在道德判断的缺失。


On the contrary, morality is often a motivating force: “People are impelled to violence when they feel that to regulate certain social relationships, imposing suffering or death is necessary, natural, legitimate, desirable, condoned, admired, and ethically gratifying.” Obvious examples include suicide bombings, honor killings, and the torture of prisoners during war, but Fiske and Rai extend the list to gang fights and violence toward intimate partners. For Fiske and Rai, actions like these often reflect the desire to do the right thing, to exact just vengeance, or to teach someone a lesson. There’s a profound continuity between such acts and the punishments that—in the name of requital, deterrence, or discipline—the criminal-justice system lawfully imposes. Moral violence, whether reflected in legal sanctions, the killing of enemy soldiers in war, or punishing someone for an ethical transgression, is motivated by the recognition that its victim is a moral agent, someone fully human.

恰恰相反,个体认为的“道德”其实是暴力的推动因素:“当其认为施暴与杀戮对于维护社会契约来说是必要、自然、合情合理合法,甚至能够带来精神上的满足和优越感时,人们便会诉诸暴力。”比较明显的例子有:自杀式袭击、荣誉杀人、对战俘的严刑拷打,甚至包括帮派斗争和家庭暴力。菲斯克和莱的解释是:施暴者将暴力理解为正义之举——通过报复或者教训某人来伸张社会公正。这些社会警察式的暴力行为,其实是从个体角度代为执行刑事司法体系行使的三项职能,即让不义之举付出代价、威慑可能的违法行为和对犯罪者进行教化。所谓“正义”的暴力,无论是执法、战争,还是对越过道德底线行为的社会警察式惩戒,都是将被施暴者当作一个道德主体、一个完整行为能力人。


In the fiercely argued and timely study “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” (Oxford), the philosopher Kate Manne makes a consonant argument about sexual violence. “The idea of rapists as monsters exonerates by caricature,” she writes, urging us to recognize “the banality of misogyny,” the disturbing possibility that “people may know full well that those they treat in brutally degrading and inhuman ways are fellow human beings, underneath a more or less thin veneer of false consciousness.”

在一项广受争议的适时研究《不只是厌女》(Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny)中,哲学家凯特·曼恩(Kate Manne)对性暴力提出了一致的观点。她写道:“将强奸犯描绘为(不通人性的)怪物的讽刺漫画实际上免除了他们的罪责,”她敦促我们认识到,“厌女症已成为随处可见的陈词滥调”,而令人不安的是,“或多或少存在的自我欺骗之下,人们可能完全清楚,他们以残酷的侮辱和不人道方式对待的正是他们的人类同胞。”


Manne is arguing against a weighty and well-established school of thought. Catharine A. MacKinnon has posed the question: “When will women be human?” Rae Langton has explored the idea of sexual solipsism, a doubt that women’s minds exist. And countless theorists talk about “objectification,” the tendency to deny women’s autonomy and subjecthood, and to scant their experiences. Like Fiske and Rai, Manne sees a larger truth in the opposite tendency. In misogyny, she argues, “often, it’s not a sense of women’s humanity that is lacking. Her humanity is precisely the problem.”

曼恩反对的是一种影响深远、根深蒂固的思想流派。凯瑟琳·麦金农(Catharine A. MacKinnon)提出过这样的问题:“女人什么时候才能成为人?”雷·兰顿(Rae Langton)探索了性唯我论的观念,这种观念质疑了女性思想的存在。无数理论家谈论“物化人类”,这是一种否认妇女的自主权和主体性、限制她们生存的倾向。但和菲斯克和莱一样,曼恩更认可相反的看法。她认为厌女症“通常不是缺乏对女性人性的感知。女人的人性正是问题所在。”


Men, she proposes, have come to expect certain things from women—attention, admiration, sympathy, solace, and, of course, sex and love. Misogyny is the mind-set that polices and enforces these goals; it’s the “law enforcement branch” of the patriarchy. The most obvious example of this attitude is the punishing of “bad women,” where being bad means failing to give men what they want. But misogyny also involves rewarding women who do conform, and sympathizing with men (Manne calls this “himpathy”) who have done awful things to women.

曼恩认为男人期望从女人身上得到某些东西——注意力、仰慕、认可、慰藉,当然还有性和爱。厌女症是男人用来控制和实现这些目标的思维形式,它是父权制下的“执法部门”。最能体现这一观点的例子是对那些不能满足男人要求的“坏女人”施以惩罚。然而,厌女症还包括对服从的女性给予奖励,以及对那些对女性做了可怕事情的男人表示同情(曼恩称其为“himpathy”)。


Manne delves into the case of Elliot Rodger, who, in 2014, went on a killing spree, targeting people at random, after he was denied entry to a sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He slew six people and injured fourteen more before killing himself. In a videotape, Rodger, who was twenty-two, explained that women “gave their affection and sex and love to other men but never to me.” And then, talking to these women, he said, “I will punish you all for it . . . . I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you.”

曼恩研究了艾略特·罗杰(Elliot Rodger)的案子,2014年他在被拒绝进入加利福尼亚大学圣塔芭芭拉分校的联谊会后大肆杀人,受害者都为随机挑选。在自杀之前,他杀死了六人并使十四人受伤。在录像带中,年仅22岁的罗杰辩解道,女性“将爱慕、性和爱交托给其他男人,但从未给我。”随后他对这些女性说:“我将为此惩罚所有人,我会以屠杀你们为乐。


Manne makes clear that Rodger wasn’t objectifying women; he was simply enraged that their capacity for love and romance didn’t extend to him. Manne’s analysis can be seen as an exploration of an observation made by Margaret Atwood—that men are afraid that women will laugh at them, and women are afraid that men will kill them. For Manne, such violent episodes are merely an extreme manifestation of everyday misogyny, and she extends her analysis to catcalling, attitudes toward abortion, and the predations of Donald Trump.

曼恩明确指出,罗杰并不是在物化女性。他只是因为未能获得女性的爱情和浪漫而感到愤怒。这一分析可以被看作是对玛格丽特·阿特伍德观察的延伸——男人害怕女人嘲笑她们,而女人害怕男人会杀死她们。对于曼恩来说,这样的暴力事件只是日常厌女症的一种极端表现,她将分析范围扩大到喝倒彩、对堕胎的态度以及唐纳德·特朗普的“捕食”行为这类事件上。


Nor are the mechanisms she identifies confined to misogyny. The aggressions licensed by moral entitlement, the veneer of bad faith: those things are evident in a wide range of phenomena, from slaveholders’ religion-tinctured justifications to the Nazi bureaucrats’ squeamishness about naming the activity they were organizing, neither of which would have been necessary if the oppressors were really convinced that their victims were beasts.

曼恩所认同的机制不仅仅局限于厌女症。道德准则允许的侵犯、恶意的虚伪表象显露于各种各样的现象之中,从奴隶主用宗教信仰为自己辩护,到纳粹军官命名其组织的活动的揣揣不安。如果施暴者真的确信受害者是野兽,那么这些都不必存在。


If the worst acts of cruelty aren’t propelled by dehumanization, not all dehumanization is accompanied by cruelty. Manne points out that there’s nothing wrong with a surgeon viewing her patients as mere bodies when they’re on the operating table; in fact, it’s important for doctors not to have certain natural reactions—anger, moral disgust, sexual desire—when examining patients. The philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum has given the example of using your sleeping partner’s stomach as a pillow when lying in bed, and goes on to explore the more fraught case of objectification during sexual intercourse, suggesting that there’s nothing inherently wrong about this so long as it is consensual and restricted to the bedroom.

如果不是非人化推动了最恶劣的残酷行径,那么也并非所有非人化的行为都是残忍的。曼恩认为外科医生在手术台上将患者物化为身体并非不妥。实际上,医生进行检查时避免某些自然反应是很重要的,这些反应包括愤怒、道德厌恶、性欲。哲学家玛莎·努斯鲍姆(Martha C. Nussbaum)以躺在床上时用同伴的肚子作枕头为例,并继续研究性交时物化身体的情形。她认为,只要这种物化得到双方的同意并仅限于卧室内,就没什么问题。


As a philosopher, Manne grounds her arguments in more technical literature, and at one point she emphasizes the connection between her position and the Oxford philosopher P. F. Strawson’s theory of “reactive attitudes.” Strawson argued that, when we’re dealing with another person as a person, we can’t help experiencing such attitudes as admiration and gratitude, resentment and blame. You generally don’t feel this way toward rocks or rodents. Acknowledging the humanity of another, then, has its risks, and these are neatly summarized by Manne, who notes that seeing someone as a person makes it possible for that person to be a true friend or beloved spouse, but it also makes it possible for people to be “an intelligible rival, enemy, usurper, insubordinate, betrayer, etc.” 

作为哲学家,曼恩将自己的论点立足于更多的专业文献。她指出自己的观点与牛津哲学家斯特劳森(P. F. Strawson)的“反应态度”理论之间的联系。斯特劳森认为,当我们作为人类与另一个人打交道时,会自然感受到钦佩、感激、怨恨和责备等态度,而我们面对岩石或啮齿类动物则不会有这种感觉。承认他人的人性也会有风险,曼恩巧妙地总结了这些风险:将人视为人可以收获真正的朋友或心爱的配偶,但他人也可能成为“显而易见的对手、敌人、篡夺者、下属、背叛者等”。


If there’s something missing from these approaches to violence, it’s attention to first-person attitudes, how we think about ourselves as moral agents. I can resent someone, but I can also feel shame at how I treated him or her. Fiske and Rai sometimes write as if the paradigm of moralistic violence were the final scene of the movie in which our hero blows away the terrorist or the serial killer or the rapist—a deeply satisfying act that has everyone cheering. But what about doubt and ambivalence? Some fathers who severely beat their misbehaving children, or some soldiers who engage in “punitive rape,” are confident in the moral rightness of their acts. But some aren’t. Real moral progress may involve studying the forms of doubt and ambivalence that sometimes attend acts of brutality.

如果说这些对暴力的解释少了点什么,那就是缺乏对第一人称视角的关注——我们如何将自己看做道德主体。我可以对一个人感到愤怒,也会因自己对待他的方式感到羞耻。有时在菲斯克和莱笔下,“正义”暴力的解释就像是电影的最后一幕,英雄战胜了恐怖分子、连环杀手或强奸犯,这是一个令人深感满意的剧本,每个人都为之欢呼。但是人们心中的怀疑和矛盾情绪呢?在殴打行为不端的孩子的父亲或一些从事“惩罚性强奸”的士兵中,有些人认为自己的行为在道德上会被认可,但是有些人不会这么觉得。而真正的道德进步可能需要研究施暴者施暴时时而会产生的怀疑心态和内心矛盾。


In a masterly and grim book, “One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps” (Little, Brown), Andrea Pitzer articulates some of the perplexities of her subject. Pitzer’s description of various concentration camps contains so many examples of cruelty and degradation that it’s impossible to see them as a mere failure to acknowledge the humanity of their victims. As the scholar of warfare Johannes Lang has observed of the Nazi death camps, “What might look like the dehumanization of the other is instead a way to exert power over another human.”

在其构思精巧的著作《长夜:全球集中营发展史》(One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps)中,安德里亚·皮策(Andrea Pitzer)表达了其研究对象的复杂性。皮策对各种集中营的描述包含了如此多残酷和剥削的例子,以至于不可能将这些行为仅仅看作是对受害者人性的否认。正如战争学者约翰尼斯·朗(Johannes Lang)对纳粹死亡集中营观察的那样,“表面上的非人化其实是向他人施加权力的一种方式。”


The limitations of the dehumanization thesis are hardly good news. There has always been something optimistic about the idea that our worst acts of inhumanity are based on confusion. It suggests that we could make the world better simply by having a clearer grasp of reality—by deactivating those brain implants, or their ideological equivalent. The truth may be harder to accept: that our best and our worst tendencies arise precisely from seeing others as human. 

非人化理论的局限性并不是好消息。对于“我们最恶劣的不人道行为源于盲目忽视人性”的这种观点,总是有一些乐观的看法。这些看法认为,只要让人们更清楚地了解现实,去除大脑中的“植入物”或其意识形态等价物,就可以使世界变得更美好。但是事实可能更难以接受:我们最好和最坏的倾向恰恰来自将他人视为人本身。


👇


我们的思考


🍺煜成的分享


暴力和愤怒,是人类与生俱来的内在属性,两者通常是共生关系。文明社会对暴行的愤怒,一部分源于施暴者对人性的漠然,以及对他人道德主体身份的蔑视,就像3K党的高马白衣、犹太人的颠沛流离;另一部分恰恰是因为施暴者从虐待其他具有相似感知能力的同类中获得的精神满足,例如爱泼斯坦的萝莉岛、斯坦福的监狱实验。


文明的发展一直伴随着对某些自然冲动的制约,我们的司法体系与道德教育,就是在做一场人心的拔河。无奈之处在于,暴力和愤怒也有可能是诉诸武力者寻求公正的手段,例如世界反法西斯战争,甚至是《V字仇杀队》、《小丑》、《蝙蝠侠》中表达出的反抗意识。当社会契约不被承认、失去效力,个体定义的“公正”和“道德”也会驱使他们诉诸武力。  


🍺伍豪的分享


人性幽暗深微,人与人之间的彼此理解困难重重。个人体验,取得一个大致的理解并不难,但越往深处走,越耗费心力,因此只能倾注在极少数人身上。与此相对应,「非人化」他者却是一种简单到不用动脑子的选择:归入某个种族,贴上某个政治标签,或是干脆就说,ta就不是个东西,我就是讨厌ta。智性在往下走,而兽性往上走,由于地球引力的关系,稍不留神,就会向下滑坡。


孔子「仁」的学说也没有很复杂,却是我们的社会能够生生不息的基础。


🍺宇琪的分享


出于差异的特质,我们区隔他者;出于相同的人性,我们施以暴力。而进一步想,暴行与善举不过是一体两面或者说一念之差。面对他者时自我感受到的威胁、对方作为潜在敌人的可能,能够激起自我愤怒的暴力回应,却也能够将至高无上的“我”拉下神坛。正如列维纳斯所述,当自我暴露在他者的过度在场中,他者要求我们不再以自我为中心进行独白,而“对话”的可能也由此诞生。我相信作者在文中对道德进步的期许也正在此处——从第一人称视角开始重思,抓住人性的复杂和潜在的良善。


另,文内提到的几本著作都值得一看。曼恩对厌女症的论述虽不算另辟蹊径,但于我们对当下女性主义的讨论也算是一种补充。


🍺李蕾的分享


将人非人化才会理所应当地实施暴行和虐待,看起来完美的逻辑推演,底层却深藏了我们对于人性本身的共情恐惧。酒精药物,激情失控,我们赋予暴力本身太多站不住脚的理由,或许只是因为爱和恨之间仅有的一线之隔太过容易被跨越,因为我们最深沉的爱和最刻骨的恨交织着组成了人性本身。



  • 本文原载于 THE NEW YORKER

  • 原文链接:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/the-root-of-all-cruelty



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)

添加伍豪微信,防止走丢



Comments are closed.