含有〈意识形态〉标签的文章(15)

退休基金

【2016-07-22】

不少朋友对金融/投资界的人为何也那么反市场感到困惑不解,among others, 一个明显的理由是退休基金的市场份额在过去几十年中大幅膨胀,这些基金的管理者大多喜欢迎合流行风潮,为了表现自己的政治正确,他们往往表现的比一般白左还要过火,至于内心是否真的相信那一套,则是另一码事。

 

标签: | | |
7795
【2016-07-22】 不少朋友对金融/投资界的人为何也那么反市场感到困惑不解,among others, 一个明显的理由是退休基金的市场份额在过去几十年中大幅膨胀,这些基金的管理者大多喜欢迎合流行风潮,为了表现自己的政治正确,他们往往表现的比一般白左还要过火,至于内心是否真的相信那一套,则是另一码事。  
剩下的

【2016-10-24】

我曾说过,90年代以来,西方左派经历了一次智识上的破产,不过我说这话时没有意识到的是,那次破产的结果不是左派从某些思想/学术领域退却,而是相反,但凡还有点脑子且有点自尊的人纷纷退出了某些学术领域(比如所有以Studies结尾的专业),结果剩下的更自信更得意更欢腾了…… ​​​​

 

标签: |
7781
【2016-10-24】 我曾说过,90年代以来,西方左派经历了一次智识上的破产,不过我说这话时没有意识到的是,那次破产的结果不是左派从某些思想/学术领域退却,而是相反,但凡还有点脑子且有点自尊的人纷纷退出了某些学术领域(比如所有以Studies结尾的专业),结果剩下的更自信更得意更欢腾了…… ​​​​  
[译文]一枚热爱本拉登的鸡蛋

Yuri Kochiyama, today’s Google Doodle, fought for civil rights — and praised Osama bin Laden
今天的谷歌Doodle:为民权作斗争并歌颂本拉登的河内山百合

作者:Dylan Matthews @ 2016-05-19
译者:bear
校对:Tiff
来源:VOX,http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713686/yuri-kochiyama

Thursday, May 19, this year would’ve been the 95th birthday of Yuri Kochiyama, a prominent Japanese-American activist who passed away at 93 two years ago. Google is marking the occasion with one of its trademark doodles.

今年五月十九日的这个周四是河内山百合的95岁诞辰,这位生前著名的日裔美国激进分子,于两年前93岁时去世。谷歌把这一天标记为一个Google doodle。【译注:Google doodle是谷歌为了庆祝节日、纪念伟人以及其它伟大成就的临时主页标志。

Some of Kochiyama’s work was deeply, clearly admirable. As an associate of Malcolm X, she was an important nonblack ally to the more militant end of the civil rights movement. She endured forced internment during World War II, and was an outspoken advocate for reparations to internees, which would eventually be passed in 1988. She was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and advocate for inmates she viewed as political prisoners.

河内山的一些工作是值得被深刻地、清晰地赞颂的。作为马尔科姆·艾克斯【译注:马尔科姆·艾克斯与马丁·路德·金并称为20世纪中期美国历史上最著名的两位黑人领导人,但他反对后者的“非暴力”的策略,主张通过以暴力革命的方式获取黑人的权利。】的伙伴,她是民权运动中战斗在第一线的重要的非黑人同盟。她在二战时期被强制收容【译注:由于二战时日本是美国的敌对国,日裔美国人被强制收容】,并且成为“被收容者赔偿”法案的积极倡导者,而这项政策最终在1988年通过。她也为反越战发声,并且支持那些她视为政治犯的囚犯。

But other commitments of hers were more ambiguous. She was an outspoken admirer of Mao Zedong even after the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. She praised Malcolm X for his “admiration for Mao and Ho Chi Minh,” and worked closely with the Revolutionary Action Movement, an “urban guerrilla warfare” organization based on “a synthesis of the thought of Malcolm X, Marx and Lenin, and Mao Zedong.” The activist Robert Williams gifted her with a copy of the Little Red Book, and she later thanked him for “the gift of Mao’s philosophy.”

但是她其他的追求则更为暧昧一些。她是毛的直言不讳的崇拜者,即便是在大跃进和文革之后。她因为马尔科姆·艾克斯对毛和胡志明的赞赏而赞扬他,并且和“革命行动运动”组织亲密合作—这是一个基于马尔科姆·艾克斯思想、马克思列宁思(more...)

标签: | |
7425
Yuri Kochiyama, today’s Google Doodle, fought for civil rights — and praised Osama bin Laden 今天的谷歌Doodle:为民权作斗争并歌颂本拉登的河内山百合 作者:Dylan Matthews @ 2016-05-19 译者:bear 校对:Tiff 来源:VOX,http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713686/yuri-kochiyama Thursday, May 19, this year would've been the 95th birthday of Yuri Kochiyama, a prominent Japanese-American activist who passed away at 93 two years ago. Google is marking the occasion with one of its trademark doodles. 今年五月十九日的这个周四是河内山百合的95岁诞辰,这位生前著名的日裔美国激进分子,于两年前93岁时去世。谷歌把这一天标记为一个Google doodle。【译注:Google doodle是谷歌为了庆祝节日、纪念伟人以及其它伟大成就的临时主页标志。】 Some of Kochiyama's work was deeply, clearly admirable. As an associate of Malcolm X, she was an important nonblack ally to the more militant end of the civil rights movement. She endured forced internment during World War II, and was an outspoken advocate for reparations to internees, which would eventually be passed in 1988. She was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and advocate for inmates she viewed as political prisoners. 河内山的一些工作是值得被深刻地、清晰地赞颂的。作为马尔科姆·艾克斯【译注:马尔科姆·艾克斯与马丁·路德·金并称为20世纪中期美国历史上最著名的两位黑人领导人,但他反对后者的“非暴力”的策略,主张通过以暴力革命的方式获取黑人的权利。】的伙伴,她是民权运动中战斗在第一线的重要的非黑人同盟。她在二战时期被强制收容【译注:由于二战时日本是美国的敌对国,日裔美国人被强制收容】,并且成为“被收容者赔偿”法案的积极倡导者,而这项政策最终在1988年通过。她也为反越战发声,并且支持那些她视为政治犯的囚犯。 But other commitments of hers were more ambiguous. She was an outspoken admirer of Mao Zedong even after the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. She praised Malcolm X for his "admiration for Mao and Ho Chi Minh," and worked closely with the Revolutionary Action Movement, an "urban guerrilla warfare" organization based on "a synthesis of the thought of Malcolm X, Marx and Lenin, and Mao Zedong." The activist Robert Williams gifted her with a copy of the Little Red Book, and she later thanked him for "the gift of Mao's philosophy." 但是她其他的追求则更为暧昧一些。她是毛的直言不讳的崇拜者,即便是在大跃进和文革之后。她因为马尔科姆·艾克斯对毛和胡志明的赞赏而赞扬他,并且和“革命行动运动”组织亲密合作—这是一个基于马尔科姆·艾克斯思想、马克思列宁思想以及毛思综合体的“城市游击战”组织。【译注:Revolutionary Action Movement是马尔科姆·艾克斯的伙伴Max Stanford建立的半秘密组织,制定了用马克思列宁主义建立黑人国家主义的运动纲领】社会活动家罗伯特·威廉姆斯送了她一本红宝书作为礼物,对此她以这是“一份毛思的礼物”为由表示了感谢。 Yuri Kochiyama was a supporter of the terrorist group Shining Path 河内山百合是恐怖组织光明之路的支持者 Two positions of Kochiyama's stand out as particularly alarming. First, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the Peruvian terrorist group Shining Path, a Maoist organization that has conducted a brutal insurgency killing tens of thousands of people since 1980.Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that Shining Path personally killed or disappeared at least 30,000. 河内山有两个立场尤其让人警觉。第一,她是秘鲁恐怖组织光辉道路的狂热拥护者——这是一个毛派组织,从1980年开始发起了一场导致数万人死亡的血腥叛乱。秘鲁真相与和解委员会认为至少三万人遭到了光辉道路的亲自杀害或导致失踪。 "Its tactics include the burning of ballot boxes and the public 'executions' of moderate local leaders and others, including nuns and priests, who are seen as rivals for the allegiance of the poor," according to a 1992 New York Times report. "In wildly exaggerated demonstrations of Maoist precepts, children have been killed for political 'crimes.' Amnesty International says the guerrillas routinely torture, mutilate and murder captives. 纽约时报在1992年的一则报道中提到:“它的策略包括烧毁投票箱和公开处决温和的本地领袖和其他人,包括修女和神父——他们被视为无产阶级的敌人”,“在疯狂的毛派戒律夸张示范中,孩子由于政治犯罪被杀害。大赦国际组织说这个游击队经常折磨,残害和杀害俘虏。” "We reject and condemn human rights because they are reactionary, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois rights," founder Abimael Guzmán declared in one document. "Rather than concentrate its attacks on the armed forces or police, Shining Path has predominantly singled out civilians," Human Rights Watch noted in 1997. "The Shining Path has pragmatically avoided taking captives unless it intends to execute them … Shining Path has been reported to torture captured civilians before executing them." Shining Path also used rape as a weapon of war. 创始人阿维马埃尔·古斯曼在一份文件中声称:“我们拒绝并谴责人权因为它是反动的,反革命的,资产阶级法权的。”“针对军队和警察的攻击还是次要的,光辉道路主要是甄选平民”人权观察组织在1997年写道,“光辉道路实用主义地避免抓俘虏,除非它打算处决他们……有报道称光辉道路在处决被抓的平民前会折磨他们。”光辉道路还把强奸作为一种战争武器。 This did not appear to bother Kochiyama, who joined a delegation to Peru organized by the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, which defends the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. She read, in her words, "the kind of reading materials that I could become 'educated' on the real situation in Peru; not the slanted reports of corporate America. The more I read, the more I came to completely support the revolution in Peru." In other words, she read, and believed, Maoist propaganda denying Shining Path's war crimes. 这似乎并没有对河内山造成困扰,她曾加入过一个由支持大跃进和文革的毛派共产主义革命党组织的代表团去秘鲁。她读道——她的原话:“这类读物能让我知晓秘鲁真实的现状;有别于美国企业的那些带有偏见的报道。我越读越觉得我在变得更加支持在秘鲁进行的这场革命。”换句话说,她阅读并且相信毛派的宣传,并且否认光辉道路的战争罪行。 After her return from Peru, she declared, "What has been taking place in both Peru and the US is a serious campaign to discredit Guzmán and the Shining Path movement, tainting them as terrorists, undermining their struggle with lies, isolating them, and intimidating anyone who might support them." 在她从秘鲁回来后,她声称:“在秘鲁和美国正在发生的是一场严重的运动——抹黑古斯曼和光辉道路运动,污蔑他们是恐怖分子,用谎言破坏他们的斗争,孤立他们,并且恐吓任何可能支持他们的人。” Yuri Kochiyama declared Osama bin Laden "one of the people that I admire" 河内山百合声明本拉登是“我尊敬的人之一” Kochiyama was a thorough-going opponent of what she viewed as American imperialism, and like some radical anti-imperialists this occasionally led her to admiring truly loathsome figures, because she thought they were effective at combating American empire. Abimael Guzmán was one. Osama bin Laden was another. 河内山是所有被她视作美帝主义事物的死对头,并且,就像一些激进的反帝国主义斗士一样,这偶尔使她仰慕一些真正令人讨厌的人物,因为她认为他们在有效地和美帝战斗。阿维马埃尔·古斯曼是一个,本拉登是另一个。 In a 2003 interview for the Objector: A Magazine of Conscience and Resistance, Kochiyama explained: 2003年,在《反对者:一份良心和抵抗的杂志》的采访中,河内山解释道:
I’m glad that you are curious why I consider Osama bin Laden as one of the people that I admire. To me, he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, all leaders that I admire. They had much in common. Besides being strong leaders who brought consciousness to their people, they all had severe dislike for the US government and those who held power in the US. 我非常高兴你对我将本拉登视为我尊敬的人之一的理由感到好奇。对我而言,他在我心中的位置和马尔科姆·艾克斯、切·格瓦拉、帕特里斯·卢蒙巴(译注:刚果民主共和国首任总理)、菲德尔·卡斯特罗,以及所有我尊敬的领袖是一样的。他们有很多共同点。除了以强大的思想领导他们的人民之外,他们都对美国政府和那些在美国掌权的人有着强烈的厌恶。 bin Laden may have come from a very wealthy family, but by the time he was twenty, he came to loathe the eliteness and class conduct of his family… 本拉登可能是来自非常富裕的家庭,但在20岁之时,他开始憎恨精英阶级和他家人所在阶级的做法…… …You asked, "Should freedom fighters support him?" Freedom fighters all over the world, and not just in the Muslim world, don’t just support him; they revere him; they join him in battle. ……你问:“自由斗士应该支持他吗?”全世界的自由斗士,不仅在穆斯林世界,不但支持他;他们尊敬他;他们在战斗中加入他。 …You stated that some freedom fighters responded that bin Laden’s agenda is more reactionary and does not speak to the needs of the masses of people who exist under US dominance. bin Laden has been primarily fighting US dominance even when he received money from the US when he was fighting in Afghanistan. He was fighting for Islam and all people who believe in Islam, against westerners, especially the US--even when he was fighting against the Russians. ……你提到一些自由斗士回应说本拉登的事业是更加反动的,并且没有为生活在美国主导下的人民群众的需求发声。即便是在他接受美国资金在阿富汗战斗的时期,本拉登的主要精力就已经放在和美国主导做斗争上了。他在为伊斯兰和所有信仰伊斯兰的人民和西方势力斗争,特别是美国——即便是在他和俄罗斯战斗的情况下。
To be clear, this is Kochiyama defending bin Laden — who, besides being a mass murderer, was a vicious misogynist and hardly the brave anti-imperial class traitor Kochiyama fancies him as — against other leftists who correctly noted that you can oppose American imperialism without allying or supporting violent jihadism. 需要明确的是,这是河内山为本拉登所作的辩护,而另一些左派人士正确地指出,在不支持暴力圣战主义或不与之结盟的情况下,也可以反对美帝国主义,对此她持反对意见。而本拉登,除了是一个大规模的杀人凶手外,还是一个恶毒的厌恶女性的人,并且他不可能像河内山赞许的那样是一个勇敢的反帝国主义的阶级反叛者。 Kochiyama's praise for Che Guevara and Fidel Castro is also controversial, and, I think wrong, but is at least somewhat common on the left. Sympathy for Shining Path and bin Laden, by contrast, is not a common left position basically anywhere. 河内山对切格瓦拉和卡斯特罗的赞美同样是有争议的。我认为这是错的,但至少在左派中还算常见。相比之下,对光辉道路和本拉登的同情在任何的左派阵营都不寻常。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]为何精神分裂症患者那么爱抽烟

Schizophrenia: No Smoking Gun
精神分裂症:缺乏“冒烟”的确凿证据

作者:Scott Alexander @ 2016-01-11
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:Slate Star Codex,http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/

[Note: despite how some people are spinning this, tobacco is still really really bad and you should not smoke it]
【请注意:尽管许多人言之凿凿,但烟草真的真的还是很不好,不应该抽烟。】

I.

Schizophrenics smoke. A lot. Depending on the study, about 60-80% of schizophrenics smoke, compared to only about 20% of the general population. And they spend on average about 27% (!) of their income on cigarettes. Even allowing that schizophrenics don’t make much income, that’s a lot of money. Sure, schizophrenics are often poor and undereducated and have other risk factors for smoking – but even after you control for this, the effect is still pretty strong.

精神分裂症患者抽烟,而且很多。根据某项研究,大约60%至80%的精神分裂症患者会抽烟,与之相比,总人口中只有约20%。而且,他们在烟草上的花费大约占到其收入的27%(!)。即便考虑到精神分裂症患者收入不高,这也是一大笔钱。无疑,精神分裂症患者通常都很穷、受教育程度不高,并且还有其他导致其吸烟的风险因素,但即便把所有这些都加以控制,精神分裂症与抽烟之间的统计关系还是很强。

Various people have come up with various explanations. Cognitively-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke as a maladaptive coping strategy for the anxiety caused by their condition. Pharmacologically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because smoking accelerates the metabolism of antipsychotic drugs and so makes their side effects go away faster. Pragmatically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because they’re stuck in institutions with nothing to do all day. No points for guessing what the Freudians say.

许多人已经为此提出过许多各种解释。关注认知的人说,精神分裂症患者抽烟,是对该疾病所致焦虑的不良应对策略。关注药理的人会说,他们抽烟是因为抽烟会加快抗精神病药物的代谢,从而能够促使其副作用更快消失。更为务实的人会说,他们抽烟是因为他们被困在了整日无所事事的社会福利机构里面。猜测弗洛伊德主义者的说法就没必要了。

But all these theories have problems. Sure, schizophrenics are often institutionalized, but even the ones at home smoke a lot. Sure, some schizophrenics are often on antipsychotics, but even the ones who aren’t on meds smoke a lot. Sure, schizophrenics are anxious, but we don’t see people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder having 80% smoking rates.

但所有这些理论都存在问题。毫无疑问,精神分裂症患者通常都被社会福利机构收容,但即便是那些散居在家的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问,有些精神分裂症患者经常服用抗精神病药,但即便是那些不服药的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问,精神分裂症患者很焦虑,但我们并没有在患有广泛性焦虑障碍的人群中看到80%的吸烟率。

As usual, (more...)

标签: | |
7262
Schizophrenia: No Smoking Gun 精神分裂症:缺乏“冒烟”的确凿证据 作者:Scott Alexander @ 2016-01-11 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:Slate Star Codex,http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/ [Note: despite how some people are spinning this, tobacco is still really really bad and you should not smoke it] 【请注意:尽管许多人言之凿凿,但烟草真的真的还是很不好,不应该抽烟。】 I. Schizophrenics smoke. A lot. Depending on the study, about 60-80% of schizophrenics smoke, compared to only about 20% of the general population. And they spend on average about 27% (!) of their income on cigarettes. Even allowing that schizophrenics don’t make much income, that’s a lot of money. Sure, schizophrenics are often poor and undereducated and have other risk factors for smoking – but even after you control for this, the effect is still pretty strong. 精神分裂症患者抽烟,而且很多。根据某项研究,大约60%至80%的精神分裂症患者会抽烟,与之相比,总人口中只有约20%。而且,他们在烟草上的花费大约占到其收入的27%(!)。即便考虑到精神分裂症患者收入不高,这也是一大笔钱。无疑,精神分裂症患者通常都很穷、受教育程度不高,并且还有其他导致其吸烟的风险因素,但即便把所有这些都加以控制,精神分裂症与抽烟之间的统计关系还是很强。 Various people have come up with various explanations. Cognitively-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke as a maladaptive coping strategy for the anxiety caused by their condition. Pharmacologically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because smoking accelerates the metabolism of antipsychotic drugs and so makes their side effects go away faster. Pragmatically-minded people say that schizophrenics smoke because they’re stuck in institutions with nothing to do all day. No points for guessing what the Freudians say. 许多人已经为此提出过许多各种解释。关注认知的人说,精神分裂症患者抽烟,是对该疾病所致焦虑的不良应对策略。关注药理的人会说,他们抽烟是因为抽烟会加快抗精神病药物的代谢,从而能够促使其副作用更快消失。更为务实的人会说,他们抽烟是因为他们被困在了整日无所事事的社会福利机构里面。猜测弗洛伊德主义者的说法就没必要了。 But all these theories have problems. Sure, schizophrenics are often institutionalized, but even the ones at home smoke a lot. Sure, some schizophrenics are often on antipsychotics, but even the ones who aren’t on meds smoke a lot. Sure, schizophrenics are anxious, but we don’t see people with Generalized Anxiety Disorder having 80% smoking rates. 但所有这些理论都存在问题。毫无疑问,精神分裂症患者通常都被社会福利机构收容,但即便是那些散居在家的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问,有些精神分裂症患者经常服用抗精神病药,但即便是那些不服药的也抽很多烟。毫无疑问,精神分裂症患者很焦虑,但我们并没有在患有广泛性焦虑障碍的人群中看到80%的吸烟率。 As usual, I’m more biologically-minded, so I find it interesting that some of the genes that most commonly turn up as linked to schizophrenia – especially CHRNA3, CHRNA5, and CHRNA7 – are in nicotine receptors. Indeed, some of them are also the genes identified as risk factors for smoking. 我素来更倾向从生物学方面考虑,所以我发现了一个有趣之处,那就是部分最经常被与精神分裂症联系在一起的基因,特别是CHRNA3、CHRNA5和CHRNA7,都能在尼古丁受体上找到。 Further, there’s a lot of evidence that schizophrenic people actually feel better and have fewer symptoms when they’re smoking. Further, schizophrenics tend to gravitate toward cigarettes with higher nicotine content, and smoke them in ways that maximize nicotine absorption. 实际上,部分此类基因同时也被确认为影响吸烟的风险因素。此外,大量证据表明,精神分裂症患者在吸烟时确实会更加舒坦、更少症状。此外,精神分裂症患者一般会较喜欢尼古丁含量更高的烟草,而且吸烟时会设法尽量吸收更多的尼古丁。 It seems like part of the problem with schizophrenia is that the brain’s nicotine system isn’t working well. Smoking supplements nicotine and makes the system run smoother, so schizophrenics feel better when they smoke and continue to do so. This is the widely accepted self-medication hypothesis. 精神分裂症的问题似乎部分在于患者大脑的尼古丁系统运转不良。吸烟能够补充尼古丁,从而让这一系统运转更加顺畅,所以精神分裂症患者在吸烟时会感觉更加良好,并且乐此不疲。这就是受到广泛认同的“自发用药假说”。 I like this because it’s a really elegant example of…I don’t know what you’d call it…memetic evolution? Nobody knew that nicotine helped schizophrenia, nobody told the schizophrenics that, but they sort of naturally gravitated to an effective treatment for their condition by going in the direction of things that make them feel better, even going so far as to unknowingly gravitate toward cigarette brands with more nicotine. 我喜欢这一假说,因为它真是模因进化(我不知道你们如何称呼它)的一个极好例证。原先并没人知道尼古丁有助于缓解精神分裂症,没人这么告诉患者,但他们通过追随让他们感觉良好的事物,可以说是自然地找到了有效的治疗方法,甚至不自觉地偏爱尼古丁含量更高的烟草品牌。 They did all of this before psychiatry had any idea why they were doing it, and in the face of constant protests that it was stupid and useless. This should be a warning to anyone who’s too quick to tell patients that their coping strategies are maladaptive. 早在精神病学对其做法之缘由有任何了解之前,他们就已经在这么做了,尽管当时人们一直批评这种做法既愚蠢又无用。有些人会过于仓促地认为患者的应对策略调整不佳,上述事实应当能让这些人引以为戒。 But there’s a much more important question here: does smoking cause schizophrenia? How about prevent it? 但此处还有一个更为重要的问题:吸烟会导致精神分裂症吗?又会不会防止精神分裂症呢? II. First, the causation argument. Gurillo et al do a meta-analysis and conclude that “daily tobacco use is associated with increased risk of psychosis and an earlier age of onset of psychotic illness. The possibility of a causal link between tobacco use and psychosis merits further examination”. That is, schizophrenics are already smoking much more at the moment their schizophrenia starts. This suggests that maybe smoking is helping to cause the schizophrenia? 首先来看因果论证。Gurillo等人做了一个荟萃分析,得出结论认为:“每日使用烟草与精神病风险的增加和精神疾病发病年龄的提早均有关。烟草使用和精神病之间存在因果关系的可能性还需要进一步研究。”也就是说,精神分裂症患者在初次发病时就已经在大量抽烟了。这是否意味着吸烟有可能增加患精神分裂症的风险? All nice and well, except for a few things. First, this study ignores the possibility that the genes that cause schizophrenia might also cause increased smoking, even though we have some evidence that this is true (actually, it doesn’t ignore this, it mentions it, but uses it as a reason why a schizophrenia-smoking link is more plausible). 听上去很好,就是有一点点问题。首先,该研究忽略了一种可能性,即导致精神分裂症的基因可能也会导致烟瘾增加,而我们在这方面有一些证据。(实际上该研究并没有忽略这种可能性,而是有所提及,但只是把它作为精神分裂症与吸烟有关联这一说法更可信的理由)。 Second, we know that people who will later develop schizophrenia are seen as kind of odd even before they come down with the disease, and it’s possible that they’re already in some unusual brain state that smoking helps relieve. Third, this study is not controlled – meaning that we’re totally helpless before factors like “people destined to later develop schizophrenia are often poor, and poor people smoke more”. 第二,我们知道,有些后来得了精神分裂症的人早在得病之前就看起来似乎有点奇怪,可能那时候他们的大脑就已经处于某种不正常状态,而吸烟能帮助缓解这种状况。第三,该项研究没有进行对照控制,也就是说如果把某些因素考虑进去,比如“后来注定会得精神分裂症的人通常很穷,而穷人通常抽烟更多”等,我们就无力回答。 And fourth, another study shows exactly the opposite. 还有,第四,另一项研究有完全相反的发现。 Zammit et al (thanks to @allfeelsallthetime for the tip) looks at 50,000 teenage Swedish conscripts, then follows them throughout their lives to see which ones do or don’t get schizophrenia. They find that without adjusting for confounders, smokers are more likely to get schizophrenia. Zammit等人(感谢网友@allfeesallthetime提示)选取了50000个应征入伍的瑞典青少年,然后终身追踪他们,观察哪些会得精神分裂症,哪些不会。他们发现,如果不就混杂因子【编注:混杂因子是指同时导致A与B两个因子,从而使得A与B表现出相关性的因子。】作出调整,吸烟者便看起来更可能得精神分裂症。 But when you do adjust for confounders, smokers are less likely to get schizophrenia, (hazard ratio 0.8, p = 0.003) and heavy smokers are much less likely to get schizophrenia (hazard ratio 0.5)! A dose-dependent relationship was found between smoking and protection from schizophrenia. This is really interesting. 但如果你就混杂因子作了调整,吸烟者得精神分裂症的可能性相对就会较低(风险比为0.8,p=0.003),而重度嗜烟者患精神分裂症的可能性相对而言非常低(风险比为0.5)!在吸烟与避免精神分裂症之间居然找出了这种与剂量相关的关系,真是非常有意思。 Why do we find such different results from these two studies? The only explanation I can think of is that the second study controls for various factors including cannabis use, personality variables, IQ, past psychiatric diagnoses, and place of upbringing (thanks @su3su2u1 for the tip) and the first study controls for zilch. 为什么两项研究会得出如此不同的结论?我能想到的唯一解释就是,第二项研究对照控制了许多不同因素,包括吸食大麻、个性差异、智商、既往精神病诊断史、成长地点等(感谢网友@su3su2u1提示),而第一项研究没做任何控制。 In fact, we find that the second study’s uncontrolled numbers are not that different from the first study’s uncontrolled numbers, and that the only difference is that the second study then went on to control for confounders and get the opposite result. Controlling for more things is not always better, but controlling for a few things that previous studies and common sense suggest are very relevant is pretty superior to just leaving the data entirely unprocessed. Advantage very much second study. 实际上,我们发现第二项研究中未进行控制的因子数目跟第一项研究中未进行控制的因子数目没有多大出入,两者唯一的差别就是第二项研究进一步控制了混杂因子,然后就得出了相反的结论。控制的因子并不总是越多越好,但对此前研究和基本常识都认为,对非常相关的一些事项进行控制,比对数据完全不加任何处理的做法要好得多。第二项研究因而拥有压倒优势。 III. Unlike certain people on Facebook, I fucking hate science. Let me explain why. 跟Facebook上的某些人不同,我真他妈讨厌科学。让我来解释解释。 The first study here, Gurillo et al, was published ten years after the second study. Since it is a meta-analysis, it included the second study in it. The authors of the first study definitely read the second study. They just didn’t care. 此处提到的Gurillo等人所做的第一项研究,发表于第二项研究完成后的10年之后。由于它是一个荟萃分析,所以它的对象包括了第二项研究。该研究的作者们必定读过第二项研究。他们只是毫不在乎。 Nowhere in the first study does it say “By the way, we read this other study that got the opposite results from us, let’s try to figure out why, oh, it was because they controlled for things and we didn’t, maybe that should call our findings into question.” 第一项研究从未在任何地方说过:“此外,我们读到了另外一项研究,其结论与我们的正相对立;我们来看看原因是什么,哦,原来是因为他们对一些事项进行了控制而我们没有,这也许会对我们的发现构成质疑。” You know what they did do? They listed the second study as finding that smoking increased schizophrenia risk, because the rules of their meta-analysis said they would only take uncontrolled data, and so they did. You can read this entire study, which cites the second study no fewer than six times, without hearing at all about the fact that the second study got the opposite result using likely better methodology. 你知道他们实际干了什么吗?他们将第二项研究列为吸烟增加精神分裂症患病风险的发现之一,因为他们做荟萃分析的一项原则是只采用未控制的数据,他们也真是这么做的。你们可以读读其全文,它引用第二项研究不下六次,但在任何地方你都看不到它提及第二项研究利用可能更好的方法得出了完全相反的结论这一事实。 Then they go on to conclude that: 然后,他们在结论中说:
Cigarette smoking might be a hitherto neglected modifiable risk factor for psychosis, but confounding and reverse causality are possible. Notwithstanding, in view of the clear benefits of smoking cessation programs in this population, every effort should be made to implement change in smoking habits in this group of patients. 吸烟可能是引发精神病的可改造风险因素之一,这一点迄今为止一直为人所忽略。但是,混杂偏差和反向因果关系也有可能存在。尽管如此,考虑到在这一人群中实施戒烟计划的明显好处,我们应该全面努力,促使这一病患群体改变吸烟习惯。
Clear benefits! Every effort! Aaaaaaah! 明显好处!全面努力!啊哈哈哈哈! I mean, I know where they (and the Lancet editors, who write a glowing comment backing them up) are coming from. Smoking is bad because lung cancer, COPD, etc. But now we have these things called e-cigarettes! They deliver nicotine without tobacco! As far as anyone knows they carry vastly less risk of cancer, COPD, etc. If nicotine actually prevents schizophrenia rather than causing it, that is the sort of thing we should really want to know. And instead we’re just getting this “We should make schizophrenia patients stop smoking, because smoking is bad”. 我说,我知道他们(以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们,他们写了篇热情洋溢的评论支持前者)的出发点在哪儿。吸烟不好,因为会导致肺癌、慢性阻塞性肺炎等等。但我们现在已经有了所谓的电子烟!它们无需烟草就能提供尼古丁。如果尼古丁确实会预防而不是导致精神分裂症,这种事应该是我们确实想要明白知晓的。但是,我们听到的却是这样一些话:“我们应该让精神分裂症患者停止抽烟,因为抽烟不好。” Look. I am not going to come out and say that there’s great evidence that nicotine decreases schizophrenia risk. There’s one study, which other studies contradict. I happen to think that the one study looks better than its competitors, but that’s my opinion and I have nowhere near the evidence I would need to feel really strongly about this. 注意,我不是跳出来说有很强的证据表明尼古丁有助于减少精神分裂症患病风险。有一项研究这么说,还有许多研究跟它有抵触。我只是凑巧觉得,这项研究似乎比其他研究做得更好,当然这只是我的个人看法,要说我对这一想法的信念有多强烈,那根本还缺乏必要的证据支持。 But I feel like we are very far from the point where we know enough to be pushing people at risk of schizophrenia away from nicotine, and light-years away from the point where we can use phrases like “clear benefits”. 但是,我也认为,要说我们已经具备了足够的知识,以催促有精神分裂症患病风险的人远离尼古丁,那我们现在还差得远;要说使用“明显好处”一类的说法,那我们还差着很多光年。 Possibly I am an idiot and missing something very important. But if this is true, I wish the authors of the new study, and the editors of The Lancet, would have acknowledged the existence of the conflicting study and patiently explained to their readership, many of whom are idiots like myself, “Here’s a study that looks better than ours that seems to contradict our results, but here’s why our study is nevertheless far more believable.” That’s all I ask. 也许我是个笨蛋,忽略了一些非常重要的事情。但如果真是如此,我就希望上述新研究的作者们,以及《柳叶刀》的编辑们,能够承认与他们有相互冲突的研究存在,并能耐心地向读者们解释,因为许多读者跟我一样是笨蛋。“有项研究看起来比我们做得好,结论与我们的相反,但我们的研究仍然更可信,理由如下。”这才是我希望看到的。 No matter how much of an idiot I am, I can’t possibly imagine how that wouldn’t be a straight-out gain. 不管我有多么傻,我也根本无法想象,这么做怎么会不是一件彻头彻尾的好事。 PS: Cigarette smoking definitely decreases your risk of Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s is similar to schizophrenia in that both involve dopamine. But schizophrenia involves too much dopamine and Parkinson’s too little, so the analogy could go either direction. 附:吸烟绝对会减少你患帕金森症的风险。帕金森症跟精神分裂症有些类似,两者都涉及到多巴胺。只是,精神分裂症是多巴胺过多,而帕金森症则是过少,所以该类比可以指向两个方向。【译注:即吸烟可能会减低,也可能会增加精神分裂症的风险。PPS: Tobacco smoking is definitely still bad! Nothing in here at all suggests that tobacco smoking has the slightest chance of not being a terrible decision! 又附:吸烟仍然绝对有害!本文没有任何地方说吸烟有可能不是个糟糕的决定,没门。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

深红区

【2016-07-21】

@海德沙龙: 《牛仔:备受排挤的濒危物种》 2014年的内华达『邦迪对峙』和今年初的俄勒冈占领行动,让牛仔这个久已被遗忘的群体又进入了公众视野,本文是一位俄勒冈牧场主写给《华盛顿邮报》的一封信,讲述了近年来联邦政府的土地与环境政策如何影响着他们的生计。

@海德沙龙: 牧场主处境恶化只是这场对抗的背景之一,更大的背景是日益膨胀的国家主义与美国传统价值观的对立,『邦迪对峙』得到了众多民兵组织的支持,这些民兵组织代表了自由、独立、自治的古老美国传统,通过支持牧场主的行(more...)

标签: | | |
7322
【2016-07-21】 @海德沙龙: 《牛仔:备受排挤的濒危物种》 2014年的内华达『邦迪对峙』和今年初的俄勒冈占领行动,让牛仔这个久已被遗忘的群体又进入了公众视野,本文是一位俄勒冈牧场主写给《华盛顿邮报》的一封信,讲述了近年来联邦政府的土地与环境政策如何影响着他们的生计。 @海德沙龙: 牧场主处境恶化只是这场对抗的背景之一,更大的背景是日益膨胀的国家主义与美国传统价值观的对立,『邦迪对峙』得到了众多民兵组织的支持,这些民兵组织代表了自由、独立、自治的古老美国传统,通过支持牧场主的行动,他们展示了不惜以武力对抗联邦政府权力扩张的决心。 @whigzhou: 牧区与深红区高度重合 @whigzhou: 牛仔最多的落基山东麓各州(爱达荷、蒙大拿、怀俄明、犹他)既是保守派势力最稳固的州,也是共和党初选中川普输的最惨的州,这不是巧合 @whigzhou: 90年代以来,美国学术界急剧左倾,但这一倾向并非均匀分布,左倾最严重的是新英格兰地区的大学,而落基山东麓各州的大学是唯一的例外,保守派比例不降反升,不想放弃学术的保守派都跑那儿去了 @whigzhou: 从下图可见,美国学术界近二十年的左倾化主要是新英格兰大学贡献的 http://t.cn/RtAxkDi Figure 2. Regional Ideological Variations of Americas Professors: 1989 – 2014 @whigzhou: 美国校园的革命小将再这么闹下去,说不定到最后就是这些对学术最没兴趣的落基州保存了美国的学术和思想自由,这不由让人想起瑞士,很难说瑞士山民对金融业有什么兴趣,但正是瑞士山民的彪悍、独立和对自由的执着,在动荡年代为欧洲金融业保存了一个避难所。  
除非傻瓜

【2016-07-14】

@海德沙龙 《以色列的共产主义土壤》 以色列人在生活中就像资本主义的终极典范,他们是个人主义者,极其善于创建和经营企业,对开发和推销创新也很在行。以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。然而,这些在自由市场中如鱼得水的以色列人,却极其讨厌市场,资本主义在多数以色列人眼里是个脏字。

@whigzhou: 以色列的经历带来几点启示:1)在远离日常尺度因而难以建立直觉的系统级问题上,非常聪明的一群人也可能犯浑,以色列(more...)

标签: |
7279
【2016-07-14】 @海德沙龙 《以色列的共产主义土壤》 以色列人在生活中就像资本主义的终极典范,他们是个人主义者,极其善于创建和经营企业,对开发和推销创新也很在行。以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。然而,这些在自由市场中如鱼得水的以色列人,却极其讨厌市场,资本主义在多数以色列人眼里是个脏字。 @whigzhou: 以色列的经历带来几点启示:1)在远离日常尺度因而难以建立直觉的系统级问题上,非常聪明的一群人也可能犯浑,以色列意识形态的转向发生在大批俄裔移民的涌入之后,后者对共产主义有着直觉感受,2)即便意识形态背景很恶劣,但只要面临急迫的现实生存问题,而且人不太笨,就不会在错误道路上走太远 @whigzhou: 立国以来,如何打赢战争生存下去,始终是以色列的头号问题,这迫使他们必须走务实道路,在战后两大阵营里,投靠哪一边更可能生存并保持独立,是不难看清的,除非傻瓜  
[译文]进步派的种族主义历史

When Bigots Become Reformers
 当顽固派变成改革者

作者:Damon Root @ 2006-05
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou)
来源:Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2006/05/01/when-bigots-become-reformers/

The Progressive Era’s shameful record on race.
进步时代在种族问题上的黑记录

The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1977, by David W. Southern, Wheeling, W.V.: Harlan Davidson, 240 pages, $15.95

《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1977》,作者 David W. Southern

THE PROGRESSIVE movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change.

大概从1890年代早期开始,直到1920年代早期,进步主义运动席卷美国,催生了一个广泛的民众共识,即政府应当是推动社会变化的首要主体。

To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance(more...)

标签: | | | |
7177
When Bigots Become Reformers  当顽固派变成改革者 作者:Damon Root @ 2006-05 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou) 来源:Reason,https://reason.com/archives/2006/05/01/when-bigots-become-reformers/ The Progressive Era’s shameful record on race. 进步时代在种族问题上的黑记录 The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1977, by David W. Southern, Wheeling, W.V.: Harlan Davidson, 240 pages, $15.95 《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1977》,作者 David W. Southern THE PROGRESSIVE movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. 大概从1890年代早期开始,直到1920年代早期,进步主义运动席卷美国,催生了一个广泛的民众共识,即政府应当是推动社会变化的首要主体。 To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women's suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else. 为实现那一目的,一大批年轻的理想主义斗士活跃在地方、各州直至联邦政府层面,掌握并运用手中势不可挡的权力,制定了成堆的新法律,涉及最低工资和最长工时法、反托拉斯法、酒精出售与消费限制、对数百英里道路与高速路的征用、对新移民及穷人的补助、妇女投票权和选举改革,等等。 Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America's Future, described Progressivism as "one of the country's great traditions." Progressives, he told the crowd, "exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history." 今天,许多自由左派人士希望复兴这一运动以及它带来的社会正义氛围。在一场由左翼团体“美国的未来运动”举办的会议上,记者Bill Moyers称进步主义是“美国的伟大传统之一”。他向与会者说,进步派“提升并拓展了原本的美国革命。他们阐明了人民与统治者之间合作关系的新条件。他们所点燃的火焰,照亮了现代历史上最为繁荣昌盛的年代之一。” Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. 然而,进步时代也是一个种族主义得到国家支持、极为严重的时代。事实上,从非裔美国人历史的角度来看,进步时代可以说是自黑奴解放以来最为黑暗的一段时间。南方黑人选民的公民权遭到大规模剥夺,就发生于这段时间,Jim Crow法【译注:指南方各州通过的在公共设施使用上实行种族隔离的法律】也是在此期间出现并流行。 Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900-1917, the very worst of it-disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching-"went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today's activist left. 另外,正如威斯敏斯特学院的历史学家Daivd W. Southern在其新书《进步时代与种族问题:改革与反动,1900-1917》中所提到的那样,其中最糟糕的情形——剥夺选举权、种族隔离、种族羞辱和对黑人实施私刑——“与南方进步运动的最先进活动是携手并进的。”正是在那些被今天的左派活动家浪漫化的斗士中,种族主义是种常态,而非例外。 At the heart of Southern's flawed but useful study is a deceptively simple question: How did reformers infused with lofty ideals embrace such abominable bigotry? His answer begins with the race-based pseudoscience that dominated educated opinion at the turn of the 20th century. Southern的研究不无瑕疵,但非常有用,其核心是一个看似简单的问题:那些心中充满崇高理念的改革者们怎么会有这样恶劣的偏执言行?他的回答始于一种以种族为基础的伪科学,这种伪科学在19和20世纪之交时曾在知识人的观念中占据主导地位。 "At college," Southern notes, "budding progressives not only read exposés of capitalistic barons and attacks on laissez-faire economics by muckraking journalists, they also read racist tracts that drew on the latest anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, eugenics, and medical science." “学院里头,”Southern提到,“崭露头角的进步派不仅阅读调查记者所写的揭批资本主义大亨、攻击自由放任经济学的东西,他们也阅读那些征引最新的人类学、生物学、心理学、社会学、优生学和医学研究的种族主义小册子。” Popular titles included Charles Carroll's The Negro a Beast (1900) and R.W. Shufeldt's The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization (1907). One bestseller, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1916), discussed the concept of "race suicide," the theory that inferior races were outbreeding their betters. 当时流行的作品包括Charles Carroll的《黑人是野兽》(1900)和R. W. Shufeldt的《黑人对美国文明的威胁》(1907)。Madison Grant所写的畅销书,《伟大种族的消逝》,讨论了“种族自杀”这一概念,该理论认为卑贱种族已然比优等种族繁殖得更快。 President Theodore Roosevelt was one of many Progressives captivated by this notion: He opposed voting rights for African-American men, which were guaranteed by the 15th amendment, on the grounds that the black race was still in its adolescence. 西奥多·罗斯福总统就是诸多被这一概念俘获的进步人士之一。他反对非裔美国男性获得由宪法第15修正案保障的投票权,理由就是黑人种族尚未成年。 Such thinking, which emphasized "expert" opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, which favored a large, active government that engaged in technocratic, paternalistic planning. As for reconciling white supremacy with egalitarian democracy, keep in mind that when a racist Progressive championed "the working man," "the common man," or "the people," he typically prefixed the silent adjective white. 这类理论强调“专家”观点,主张扩大政府权力,与进步主义的世界观严丝合缝,后者就欣赏大而有为、实施专家治理和家长式计划的政府。至于在白人至上与民主平等之间如何调和,你只要记住,当一个种族主义的进步派拥护“劳动群体”、“普通人”或“人民”时,他总是会加上一个不说出声的形容词前缀,“白人”。 For a good illustration, consider Carter Glass of Virginia. Glass was a Progressive state and U.S. senator and, as chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, one of the major architects of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of his state's massive effort to disfranchise black voters. 这里有个很好的例证,就是弗吉尼亚州的Carter Glass。Glass是个进步派,既是州参议员也是国会参议员,他曾任国会银行与货币委员会主席,是1913年《联邦储备法》的主要缔造者之一。他也是弗吉尼亚州大规模剥夺黑人选民公民权行动的热情支持者。 "Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose," he declared to one journalist. "To remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate." “歧视!为什么这恰恰就是我们所提倡的,”他对某记者宣称,“为了合法地移除每一个可以甩掉的黑人投票人,避免极大地削弱白人选民的数量优势。” Then there was political scientist John R. Commons, an adviser to the Progressive Wisconsin governor and senator Robert M. LaFollette and a member of Theodore Roosevelt's Immigration Commission. Commons, the author of Races and Immigrants in America (1907), criticized immigration on both protectionist grounds (he believed immigrants depressed wages and weakened labor unions) and racist ones (he wrote that the so-called tropical races were "indolent and fickle"). 然后还有政治科学家John R. Commons,他曾是威斯康辛州进步派州长和参议员Robert M. LaFollette的顾问,还曾是西奥多·罗斯福的“移民委员会”成员。Commons著有《美国的种族与移民》(1907),同时从贸易保护主义立场(他相信移民压低了工资、削弱了工会)和种族主义立场(他写道,所谓的热带种族都“懒惰而善变”)出发批评外来移民。 Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. "I have recently spent several days in Washington," the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilson's first term, "and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time." 伍德罗·威尔逊,这位进步派总统的遗产包括联邦储备体系、一项针对农民的联邦贷款计划和铁路工人八小时工作日制度,对华盛顿的联邦机构实施了种族隔离。“最近我在华盛顿呆了几天”,黑人领袖Booker T. Washington在威尔逊的第一个任期写道,“我从没见过有色人种像今天这样气馁心酸。” Perhaps the most notorious figure of the era was Benjamin "Pitchfork" Tillman, a leading Southern Progressive and inveterate white supremacist. As senator from South Carolina from 1895 to 1918, Tillman stumped for "Free Silver," the economic panacea of the agrarian populist (and future secretary of state) William Jennings Bryan, whom Tillman repeatedly supported for president. 或许这一时代最为臭名昭著的人物应数“干草叉”Benjamin Tillman,南方进步派领袖,同时也是冥顽不灵的白人至上主义者。Tillman从1895年至1918年一直是南卡罗来纳州的参议员,一直为William Jennings Bryan这位土地民粹主义者(后曾出任国务卿)的经济万灵药——“自由银币”——而奔走鼓呼,并反复支持后者出任总统。 "Pitchfork" Tillman favored such Progressive staples as antitrust laws, railroad regulations, and public education, but felt the latter was fit only for whites. "When you educate a negro," he brayed, "you educate a candidate for the penitentiary or spoil a good field hand." “干草叉”Tillman对反托拉斯法、铁路管制、公共教育等进步主义产品均表支持,但他觉得公共教育这种东西只适用于白人。“你要是教育黑人”,他干嚎道,“那就相当于为监狱教育出一个后备分子,或说是糟蹋了一个农活好手。” Nor did African Americans always fare better among those radicals situated entirely to the left of the Progressives. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, though personally sympathetic to blacks, declared during his 1912 campaign for the presidency, "We have nothing special to offer the Negro." 在完全处于进步派最左端的激进分子面前,非裔美国人也并不总是能讨得了好。美国社会党领袖Eugene V. Debs尽管私底下同情黑人,但在1912年总统竞选活动中仍宣称:“我们不能向黑人提供什么特殊对待”。 Other leading radicals offered even less. Writing in the Socialist Democratic Herald, Victor Berger, the leader of the party's right wing, declared that "there can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower race-that the Caucasian and even the Mongolian have the start on them in civilization by many years." 其他激进分子领袖愿意付出的甚至比这还少。社会党右翼领袖Victor Berger在为社会主义刊物《民主先驱报》所写文章中宣称,“毫无疑问,黑人和黑白混血是一个低等种族,白人甚至蒙古人都在文明程度上领先他们许多年。” The celebrated left-wing novelist Jack London, covering the 1908 heavyweight title bout between black challenger Jack Johnson and white boxing champ Tommy Burns, filled his New York Herald story with lurid ethnic caricatures and incessant race baiting. "Though he was a committed socialist," observed Jack Johnson biographer Geoffrey C. Ward, London's "solidarity with the working class did not extend to black people." 著名左翼小说家杰克·伦敦曾报道过黑人挑战者Jack Johnson和白人拳击冠军Tommy Burns于1908年进行的重量级拳王争霸赛,在为《纽约先驱报》采编的故事中,他用尽了各种夸张的族裔讽刺和层出不穷的种族羞辱。“尽管伦敦是个坚定的社会主义者,”Jack Johnson的传记作家Geoffrey C. Ward说道,但他“并没有将其与劳动阶级的团结延伸到黑人身上。” As Southern thoroughly documents, these examples just begin to scratch the surface. Progressivism was infested with the most repugnant strains of racism. But was there something more, something inherent in Progressivism itself that facilitated the era's harsh treatment of blacks? 正如Southern的详尽描绘所示,以上例证只是浮光掠影。种种令人心生厌恶的种族主义性质在进步主义之中泛滥成灾。但是,这一时代对于黑人的残酷态度,是否出于进步主义本身所具有的某种内在特质? According to Southern, who repeatedly maintains that racism derailed "the great promise" of Progressivism, the answer is no. "The ideas of race and color were powerful, controlling elements in progressive social and political thinking," he argues. "And this fixation on race explains how democratic reform and racism went hand-in-hand." Southern的回答是“并非如此”。他反复强调,种族主义偏离了进步主义的“伟大愿景”。“种族观念和肤色观念强大无比,控制了进步主义的社会与政治思想元素,”他论证道,“而这种对于种族的关注,解释了为何民主改革会与种族主义并驾齐驱。” That is surely correct, but is it the whole story? As the legal scholar Richard Epstein has noted, "the sad but simple truth is that the Jim Crow resegregation of America depended on a conception of constitutional law that gave property rights short shrift, and showed broad deference to state action under the police power." 这当然是对的,但这就是事情的全部面目吗?正如法学家Richard Epstein所说,“真相虽然可悲,但很简单:美国的Jim Crow种族隔离法案奠基于一种宪法理念,这种理念漠视财产权,并对国家依据治安权实施的行动表现出最大程度的顺从。” Progressivism itself, in other words, granted the state vast new authority to manage all walks of American life while at the same time weakening traditional checks on government power, including property rights and liberty of contract. Such a mixture was ripe for the racist abuse that occurred. 换句话说,进步主义本身就把广泛的新权限赋予国家,使之能够管理美国人生活的方方面面,同时又削弱了传统上对于政府权力的各种制衡,包括财产权和契约自由。这种组合对于所发生的种族主义虐待而言,正是水到渠成。 Take the Supreme Court's notorious decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that has rightly come to symbolize the South's Jim Crow regime. In Plessy, the Court considered a Louisiana statute forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to blacks, a clear violation of economic liberty. 以最高法院在“普莱西诉弗格森案”(1896)中臭名昭著的判决为例,这个案子自此已经恰如其分地成为南方种族隔离体制的象征。在普莱西案中,最高法细致考察了路易斯安那州一条禁止铁路公司将头等票卖给黑人的法令——这是一条明显违反经济自由的法令。 In its 7-1 ruling, the Court upheld segregation in public accommodations so long as "separate but equal" facilities were provided for each race, setting off an orgy of legislation throughout the old Confederacy. South Carolina, for example, segregated trains two years after Plessy.Streetcars followed in 1905, train depots and restaurants in 1906, textile plants in 1915-16, circuses in 1917, pool halls in 1924, and beaches in 1934. 在其7-1的判决中,最高法院认可在公共设施中实施种族隔离,只需每个种族都获得“隔离但平等”的设施。这一判决在整个过去的南部邦联地区引爆了一轮立法高潮。比如,普莱西案两年后,南卡罗来纳州就在火车上实行了种族隔离。1905年是有轨电车,1906年是火车站和餐厅,1915-1916是纺织厂,1917年是马戏团,1924年是台球厅,1934年则是海滩。 No doubt many of those businesses would have excluded or mistreated black customers whatever the law. But in a market free from Jim Crow regulations, other businesses would have welcomed blacks, or at least black dollars, forcing racist enterprises to bear the full cost of excluding or mistreating all those potential paying customers. (This was one of the chief reasons the segregationists pushed for those laws in the first place.) 毫无疑问,不管法律如何规定,许多上述企业还是会排斥或歧视黑人顾客。但是,如果某个市场没有受到种族隔离法规的限制,其他企业就可能欢迎黑人,或至少是黑人身上的美金,那些排斥或歧视此类潜在付费顾客的种族主义企业就会被迫承受由此产生的全部成本。(这就是隔离主义者一开始推动此类立法的最主要原因之一。) The state, in the eloquent words of the historian C. Vann Woodward, granted "free rein and the majesty of the law to mass aggressions that might otherwise have been curbed, blunted, or deflected." 用历史学家C. Vann Woodward文辞华美的话来说,各州把“完全的自由和法律的庄严认可”赋予了“大规模的侵害行为,而这本来是可以有所限制、有所缓和或有所修正的。” Furthermore, this tangled web of regulations, ordinances, codes, and controls was spun during the heyday of Progressivism, precisely when such official actions were least likely to receive any meaningful scrutiny. Southern, despite his otherwise close attention to the many permutations of race and racism, fails to recognize this major defect in the Progressive worldview. 另外,这一团由各种规章、条例、法令和控制组成的乱麻是在进步主义的鼎盛时期编织出来的,而当时恰恰就是这种官方行为最不可能受到任何有意义的细致审查的时候。尽管Southern在其他地方考察种族和种族主义的各种不同组合时细致绵密,在这里却没有注意到进步主义世界观的这一巨大缺陷。 A similar failure handicaps his treatment of one of the era's rare victories for African Americans. In Buchanan v. Warley(1917), the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Louisville ordinance segregating residential housing blocks by race. The case involved a voluntary contract between a white seller and a black buyer for a housing lot located in a majority-white neighborhood. Under the law, the new black owner could not live on the property he had just purchased. Southern还有一个不足之处,导致他未能很好地处理非裔美国人在这一时期所取得的罕见胜利之一。在“布坎南诉沃利案”(1917)中,最高法院一致判决推翻路易斯维尔市依据种族来隔离居民住宅街区的法令。在该案中,黑人买方和白人卖方自由订立合同,购买一套位于以白人居民为主的街区的住宅。按照上述法律,这位黑人新房主不能在他刚刚购买的房产内居住。 Writing for the Court, Justice William Rufus Day held that "this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color...is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law." 大法官William Rufus Day代表最高法院写道,“企图阻止涉案房产转让给有色人……这是对于宪法第十四修正案关于各州不经正当法律程序不得干涉财产权的基本法则的直接违反。” Yet Southern dismisses this rare and important victory as "hollow" and incorrectly asserts that it "was decided not on the grounds of human rights, but on those of white property rights." In fact, the judicial recognition of black rights stood at the very center of the decision. Justice Day's opinion clearly states that the Fourteenth Amendment "operate[s] to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color." 然而,Southern却称这一罕见且重要的胜利“意义不大”,并且错误地断言其“并非基于人权所作出的判决,而是基于白人的财产权。”事实上,法院对黑人权利的承认正处于上述判决的核心。大法官Day在其意见中清晰阐明,第十四修正案“的作用是,准予并授权有色人获得财产,不受各州仅仅因为其肤色而针对他的立法歧视。” Nor should Southern's characterization of this victory as "hollow" pass unchallenged. As the legal scholars David Bernstein and Ilya Somin have argued, the Buchanan ruling played a major though sadly underappreciated role in the burgeoning fight for civil rights. Southern对这一胜利“意义不大”的描述也不应该轻轻揭过。正如法学家David Bernstein和Ilya Somin论证到的,布坎南案判决在风生水起的公民权斗争中发挥了重要作用,很遗憾没有获得应得的承认。 "Buchanan could not force whites to live in the same neighborhood as blacks," Bernstein and Somin write, "but it did prevent cities from stifling black migration by creating de jure and inflexible boundaries for black neighborhoods, and may have prevented even more damaging legislation." It is well worth noting, they continue, that the South did not adopt South African-style apartheid at this time, despite widespread white support for such measures. “布坎南案无法强迫白人和黑人住到同一个街区去,”Bernstein和Somin写道,“但它对各市通过为黑人街区制造法定且固定的边界以限制黑人迁徙的做法发挥了阻止效果,并且可能阻止了其他伤害性更大的立法。”他们接着说,特别值得注意的是,美国南方当时并没有采取一种南非式的种族隔离,尽管当时白人普遍支持此类举措。 In addition, Buchanan was the first major Supreme Court victory for the four-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a huge boon for the organization that would go on to win the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954), overturning Plessy. W.E.B Du Bois, an NAACP founder and longtime editor of its newsletter, The Crisis, gave Buchanan credit for "the breaking of the backbone of segregation." 此外,布坎南案是当时成立仅4年的“全国有色人种协进会”在最高法院所取得的第一次重要胜利,这为该组织带来了极大的好处,此后它将赢得里程碑式的“布朗诉教育委员会案”(1954),从而推翻普莱西案。该组织的创始人之一、长期为会刊《危机》担任编辑的W. E. B. Du Bois赞扬布坎南案“打断了种族隔离制度的脊柱”。 Despite these significant shortcomings, The Progressive Era and Race deserves careful attention. The Progressive movement unleashed, aided, and abetted some of the most destructive forces in 20th-century America. The better we understand this history, the less likely we are to repeat it. 尽管存在这些重大缺陷,《进步时代与种族问题》仍值得细心阅读。进步运动解放、助推和煽动了在20世纪美国历史上最具破坏性的一些力量。我们对这段历史了解越多,重复犯错的可能性就越小。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]以色列的共产主义土壤

Israeli Marxism
以色列的马克思主义

作者:Steven Plaut @ 2011-8-7
译者:Tankman
校对:hkustliqi
来源:FrontPage Mag,http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/100988/israeli-marxism-steven-plaut

It is difficult to explain to people living outside of Israel, and especially to Americans, the extent to which Israelis truly believe in communism.

很难对生活于以色列之外的人,尤其是美国人,解释清楚以色列人信仰共产主义的程度之深。

Sometimes they call it socialism, but they basically mean communism.

有时他们称其为社会主义,但是基本上他们指的就是共产主义。

This is not to say that they behave as communists in their private lives. Quite the contrary, Israelis live as the ultimate ideal of capitalism. They are enormously individualist. They are exceptionally good at starting and managing businesses, and of development and marketing innovations. Israel as a country has more start-up businesses than all of Europe. It registers more patents than any European country.

这并非指他们在自己的私人生活中像共产主义者那么行动。恰恰相反,以色列人像资本主义的终极典范那样生活。他们很大程度上是个人主义者。他们极其善于创建和管理企业,并对开发和推销创新也很在行。作为一个国家,以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。它的专利注册数也比任何一个欧洲国家多。

Yet those very same Israelis, who demonstrate every day their skills in succeeding in markets, hate markets. The word(more...)

标签: | | |
7166
Israeli Marxism 以色列的马克思主义 作者:Steven Plaut @ 2011-8-7 译者:Tankman 校对:hkustliqi 来源:FrontPage Mag,http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/100988/israeli-marxism-steven-plaut It is difficult to explain to people living outside of Israel, and especially to Americans, the extent to which Israelis truly believe in communism. 很难对生活于以色列之外的人,尤其是美国人,解释清楚以色列人信仰共产主义的程度之深。 Sometimes they call it socialism, but they basically mean communism. 有时他们称其为社会主义,但是基本上他们指的就是共产主义。 This is not to say that they behave as communists in their private lives. Quite the contrary, Israelis live as the ultimate ideal of capitalism. They are enormously individualist. They are exceptionally good at starting and managing businesses, and of development and marketing innovations. Israel as a country has more start-up businesses than all of Europe. It registers more patents than any European country. 这并非指他们在自己的私人生活中像共产主义者那么行动。恰恰相反,以色列人像资本主义的终极典范那样生活。他们很大程度上是个人主义者。他们极其善于创建和管理企业,并对开发和推销创新也很在行。作为一个国家,以色列拥有比整个欧洲更多的创业公司。它的专利注册数也比任何一个欧洲国家多。 Yet those very same Israelis, who demonstrate every day their skills in succeeding in markets, hate markets. The word "socialism" carries enormously romantic and positive implications for Israelis. Especially among educated (non-Russian-born) Israelis. The word capitalism is something of an obscenity for most Israelis. 然而,这些每天展示着在市场中如鱼得水技能的以色列人却讨厌市场。对以色列人来说,“社会主义”这个词带有极大的浪漫和正面意味,尤其是在受过教育的以色列人之中(在俄国出生的以色列人除外)。资本主义这个词则对大部分以色列人带有某些侮辱意味。 I suspect that someone arrested for assault could get himself off in court if he claimed the victim had called him a capitalist, it being a form of hate speech. The Israeli media invariably use the word "capitalism" in conjunction with the word piggish. (Ironically, the one exception is the business editor of Haaretz, who supports market capitalism, while the rest of the same newspaper yearns for communism.) 我怀疑因人身侵害被逮捕的人如果宣称受害人称其为资本主义者,他也许能让自己被当庭释放。称人为资本主义者算得上一种仇恨言论。以色列媒体一成不变的把“资本主义”这个词和贪婪一词搭配使用。(讽刺的是,有个例外是Haaretz的商业编辑,他支持市场资本主义,然而同一份报纸的其他同仁们则痴迷于共产主义。) The only conceivable form of market economy in the minds of the Israeli chattering class is "piggish capitalism." You would not believe the portion of Israeli professors and intellectuals who use that expression. The head of the Histadrut, Israel's largest organized crime family, uses it, being a loyal believer in piggish communism. 有话语权的以色列中产们头脑中能够想象的市场经济的唯一形式是“贪婪的资本主义”。你甚至难以相信以色列教授和知识分子中使用这个词的比例。以色列最大的有组织犯罪集团【译者注:一个工团组织】Histadrut的领袖,也用着这个词,充当着贪婪的社会主义的忠实信徒。 In normal countries, pointing out that someone is a card-carrying member of the communist party is usually more than enough to discredit that person. Not in Israel. Carriers of communist party membership cards do so with pride. Most of the members of the history department at Tel Aviv University are such communists. So are oodles of other academics. 在正常国家,指出某人是共产党的活跃成员常常意味着对此人的侮辱。但在以色列不是这样。共产党的活跃分子骄傲的公开身份。大多数特拉维夫大学历史系的成员是共产主义分子。其他学术机构也有大批类似现象。 On the one hand, the operation of markets is what makes Israel a successful viable country, one incidentally that experienced almost no implosion at all during the global financial collapse of the past 4 years. But on the other hand, markets are things Israelis claim they want suppressed. Literate Israelis insist in unison that markets are what is wrong with the world, and suppressing markets is the answer to Israel's problems. Markets are evil, rewarding selfishness. Benevolent governmental bureaucrats controlling the economy are what is needed. 一方面,市场运作使以色列成为一个成功的有活力的国家,而且在全球金融崩溃的过去四年中,它几乎没有受到一点影响。但另一方面,市场是以色列人宣称想要压制的那类事物。以色列的智识阶层一致坚持市场导致了世界的种种问题,而压制市场则是解决以色列各种问题的答案。市场是邪恶的,鼓励自私的。善意的政府官僚管制经济是必需的。 Not every Israeli, mind you. Russian-Israelis, who today are maybe a fifth of the population, have no patience for those preaching the wonders of communism. And they are notably absent in the current "social justice" rallies and marches, or what I have been calling the Woodstock along the Yarkon Festival. 并不是每个以色列人都这么。俄罗斯以色列人,如今也许占到人口的五分之一,对鼓吹共产主义奇迹的人没有耐心。他们明显地缺席当下各种“社会正义”的集会游行,或者被我称为雅孔河边的伍德斯托克狂欢的Yarkon 节会【编注:雅孔河是以色列主要河流,流经行政首府特拉维夫,河边常有集庆】。 Orthodox Jews rarely mouth the slogans of nostalgia for Bolshevik central planning of markets, although there are exceptions. (The commentator on the Torah portion in Maariv cannot get enough of communism and insists that suppressing piggish-capitalism is the highest form of Jewish ethics.) 正统派犹太教徒很少装腔作势的唠叨那些对布尔什维克中央计划经济心存怀旧之情的口号,虽然也有例外。(晚报Torah板块的评论员宣扬起共产主义总是没个够,并坚持认为压制贪婪资本主义是犹太伦理的最高形式。) Israeli academics are almost universally anti-capitalism. I am on the list of a chat list of Israeli social science faculty members, and for the past few weeks it has carried hundreds of postings yearning for socialist controls and denouncing capitalism. The posteurs universally fantasize about Israel adopting Scandinavian-style "socialism." 以色列学术界也几乎普遍地反资本主义。我本人被列在以色列社会科学教职人员的聊天通讯录上,过去几周,我从这个联系列表上收到了几百份向往社会主义管制和批评资本主义的传单。这些传单全是鼓吹把以色列改造成斯堪迪纳维亚式“社会主义”的狂想。 Putting aside some doubts as to how pleasant life really is in Scandinavia (witness Norway recently), Scandinavian "socialism" is actually not. It is essentially free markets mixed with very high tax rates and a gargantuan welfare state providing cradle-to-grave welfare services at state expense. 先不提一些疑问:斯堪迪纳维亚的生活是否真正那么快活(看看最近的挪威),斯堪迪纳维亚式“社会主义”其实并不美好。它其实是自由市场制度混合了极高的税率和从摇篮到坟墓的繁多福利,这些福利由政府提供和付费。 In other words, Scandinavia has always been far more capitalistic countries than Israel, certainly of Israel was before the 1980s. In addition, Israel has always provided Scandinavian-style welfare state services, but without the freeing of markets and liberalization of production that characterized Scandinavia. 换句话说,斯堪迪纳维亚国家其实一直比以色列更接近资本主义,特别是比80年代以前的以色列。而且,以色列已经提供了斯堪迪纳维亚式的政府福利,但却没有斯堪迪纳维亚特征的市场自由化和生产力解放。 Academic economists generally do not join the antlered herds in pining for bolshevism, but there are exceptions. Israeli economists are among the few who know what a market is, what a price is, what a wage is. The protesters never know these things. 学术界的经济学家们总的来说没有加入坚持布尔什维克主义的群落,但也有些例外。以色列经济学家位列少数知道什么市场,什么是价格,什么是工资的人当中。抗议者则从来不知道这些东西是什么。 But Israel has a long history of academic prostitution and one can always find a few academic economists willing to endorse the most idiotic "ideas" of those who understand nothing about economics, if it earns them a shekel or advances their careers. 但是以色列的学术婊源远流长,你总能发现几个经济学家愿意为那些根本不懂经济的人的愚蠢“理念”背书,只要这能够带给他们经济利益或改善其职业前途。 Hence the most passionate supporter of RAISING the minimum wage is "economist" Avishai Braverman, the guy who turned Ben Gurion University into Hamastan, and one can find similar cases of street-walking economists endorsing rent controls, nationalizations, and other fundamental axioms of economic Bolshevism. 所以提高最低工资的最热忱支持者是“经济学家”Avishai Braverman。该人让本·古里安大学变成了反以色列的先锋。你也可发现类似的例子,如一些站街经济学家支持租金管制、国有化、和一些基本的布尔什维克主义经济原则。 Most people are not aware of it but Israel began its existence as a country with a system of Bolshevik central control. In its first years Ben Gurion implemented a system of massive nationalization and near-universal price and wage controls. It differed little from the economic structure created by Lenin. 尽管大部分人没有意识到,但是以色列国从建国伊始,便拥有一个布尔什维克主义的中央计划系统。在立国的头十年,本·古里安实现了一个系统,来进行大规模国有化和几乎全面的价格及工资管制。 这几乎和列宁创建的经济系统没有区别。 Ben Gurion got away with it for a while because of the War of Independence and the national emergency. Like in that old joke about how communism in the Sahara would produce a shortage of sand, by the early 1950s everything in Israel was in shortage, buying anything and everything involved endless Soviet-style queues, and most products could only be obtained in the black markets. 由于立国战争和全国紧急状态,本·古里安曾一度逃脱了共产主义的诅咒。如那个撒哈拉的共产主义怎样能让沙子产生短缺的笑话一样【注:米尔顿·弗里德曼曾说:假如你把撒哈拉交给政府经营,我们很快会面临沙子短缺】,在50年代早期,以色列的一切物资都陷于短缺。购买任何一切东西都免不了无尽的苏联式排队,而且大部分产品只能够在黑市里弄到。 To Ben Gurion's credit, he realized by the early 1950s that the system of Bolshevik controls was unworkable. Curiously, Lenin had also understood this and took steps to dismantle the controls, except that he died and was replaced by Stalin before serious reform took place in the Soviet Union. Lenin called his plan for partial de-Bolshevikation of the economy the "New Economic Plan" or NEP, exactly the SAME name adopted by Ben Gurion for HIS reforms in the early 1950s. (No coincidence!) 本·古里安的功劳是,他在1950年代早期认识到布尔什维克计划经济行不通。令人奇怪的是,列宁也曾认识到这点,并采取了放松管制的措施,只是他去世了,而斯大林在任何深度改革实施之前就接管了权力。列宁把他的部分去布尔什维克经济计划称作“新经济计划”(New Economic Plan,NEP),和本·古里安在50年代早期实施的改革计划的名称一模一样。(这可不是巧合!) While most price controls were ended, other forms of economic Bolshevism were retained by Ben Gurion and his MAPAI party comrades. Huge portions of Israeli industry were nationalized, and much of what was left was semi-nationalized and grossly mismanaged by turning it over to the Histadrut trade union federation. 尽管大多数价格管制被终结了,其他布尔什维克主义的经济措施则仍被本·古里安和他的工党同志们保留了下来。当时以色列工业的很大比例被国有化,而剩下部分中很多被半国有化,而且把这些企业交给Histadrut工团照管造成了严重的经营不善。 Economic policy sought to suppress competition everywhere. It strived to maximize the number of monopolies and cartels in the economy. The government controlled enormous amounts of resources, which it handed out as political favors, often to cronies and party oligarchs. Tax rates were enormous and sometimes exceed 100%. Profits by enterprises were derived mainly from government subsidies and handouts. 经济政策曾试图在所有地方抑制竞争,它努力要最大程度的增加经济中垄断和卡特尔组织的数目。政府曾控制了巨量资源,并按政治偏好进行分配,这些资源常流向亲信和寡头。那时税率极高,有时甚至超过100%。企业利润曾主要依靠政府补贴和帮扶。 Government policy was protectionist and anti-competitive. The capital market was suppressed and nationalized. The government's working philosophy demanded that Israelis essentially turn all their income, savings, and wealth over to the government, and then the government bureaucracy would take care of the needs of the public and of citizens. 政府政策曾非常偏向保护主义和抑制竞争,资本市场则被抑制和国有化。政府的工作哲学要求以色列人实际上把他们所有的收入、储蓄和财富交给政府照管,然后政府官僚将会照顾公共和公民的所需。 The result was a Third World economy, albeit one dominated by a political system that actually involved elections and parliamentary processes. Israel was pauperized by the Bolshevism. It remained poor and underdeveloped. 结果就是,尽管被一个拥有选举和代议程序的政治体系所统治,经济上却仍是第三世界。以色列被共产主义弄的赤贫。而后也仍然贫困落后。 Things only began to change in a significant manner in the 1970s. Israel was being coerced into liberalizing its economy and removing some of the socialist controls because of Israel joining and signing various international trade agreements. The treaty partners refused to allow the Israeli government to continue its policies. The long period of zero growth following the Yom Kippur War also woke some people up to the necessity of having a functional economy. 70年代,事情才开始明显转变。以色列在那时被强制要求经济自由化,并除去一些社会主义管制,因为它需要加入和签署一些国际贸易协定。缔约国拒绝允许以色列政府继续其政策。在赎罪日战争后的长时期零增长,也让一些人意识到亟需一个能够有效运转的经济。 In the 1950s and 1960s it was not unusual for people to lump Israeli economic policies and conditions together with those in Egypt and other Third World backwaters. 在50和60年代,人们把以色列的经济政策和状况混同于埃及和其他死气沉沉的第三世界并不奇怪。 Things changed remarkably starting in the 1980s. Most of the nationalized industry was privatized, largely because state enterprises were losing so much money. Partly, this was due to the change in public willingness to tolerate the controls. Partly it was because of the growing number of people who had taken freshmen economics and understood the idiocy of Bolshevik controls. Partly, it was because of the growth of high tech, which the government could not control or understand. Partly, it was because of international trade treaty pressures. 直到80年代开始,情况才开始发生显著改变。大多数国有企业被私有化了,很大程度上因为国有企业的亏损如此之巨。部分地是因为容忍管制的公众意愿改变了。部分是因为越来越多的人受了基本经济学教育,并理解了布尔什维克管制的愚蠢。部分是因为高科技产业的发展,而政府并不能理解或者控制这些产业。部分是因为国际贸易压力。 There are still plenty of Bolshevik controls in place. Israel has a single-payer health system with four tightly regulated HMO-style providers. It works a lot better than you would expect, for some extraneous reasons (Israel has a young population that eats well and huge numbers of MDs). 目前仍有很多的布尔什维克管制。以色列拥有一个政府全包的医疗系统和四个被严密管制的医疗保险集团。因为一些外部因素,该系统运作的比你预期的好得多(以色列拥有年轻的人口结构,饮食健康,医生数量也很多。) There are still oodles of monopolies and cartels. Agriculture is still largely anti-competitive and inefficient, dominated by government-erected cartels. Taxes are too high. The government owns a large portion of the land in the country. Some sectors are still distorted by protectionism, especially food. 目前仍然存在很多垄断和卡特尔。农业仍然被政府设立的卡特尔控制,很大程度上是反竞争和低效的。税率太高。在国内,政府拥有很大比例的土地。一些部门仍被保护主义扭曲,尤其是食物。 The Woodstock on the Yarkon protesters are by and large leftist secularist Israelis demanding a return to the Bolshevik controls of the 1950s. They pine for the shortages and the rationing of that era because they figure that in a shortage THEY will be granted priority. 在Yarkon节日嘉年华上的抗议者完全就是要求回到50年代布尔什维克管制的左派世俗主义者。他们渴慕那时代的短缺和票证,因为他们觉得在那种短缺中,他们会被优先供给。 The central demand of the protesters is rent controls. This will end up destroying the Israeli housing stock and pauperizing elderly owners of rental property who purchased those units with the intention of earning rental income in their old age. Like in New York and other cities having rent controls, the controls will create shortages, where the true cost of obtaining rental housing actually goes UP, not down. 抗议者的核心诉求是租金管制。这最终会破坏以色列的房屋供给,并且让老迈的房东陷入赤贫。这些房东为了收租养老的缘故买了这些房子。如同纽约和其他有租金管制的城市那样,管制会产生短缺,而租到房子的真实成本实际上提高了,而不是降低了。 The protesters pine for the Soviet steppes. They demand other forms of price controls so that Israel can turn into a Brezhnev-era style of country, where people spend their days waiting in lines for commodities in perpetual and growing shortage. They want markets to be suppressed, where squads of social justice commandos can decide who gets to live in which apartment, who gets to consume those commodities in shortage, and who earns what. 抗议者们仍怀念着苏联的大平原。他们要求其他形式的价格管制,让以色列回到如勃涅日涅夫时代那样的国家。在那里有无尽的日益增长的短缺,人们为了购物整日排队。他们希望市场被抑制,而社会公正的斗士们有权决定谁搬进哪一个公寓,谁消费短缺中的那些商品,谁赚得什么。 They insist that wages be set based on what the protesters think people deserve to earn. Since there is not a single person in Israel who earns what he thinks he deserves to earn, this amounts to a demand for a Soviet-style wage board that fixes wages for all professions, starting with those who are on strike, like the MDs. 他们坚持说工资要基于抗议者认为人们理应挣多少而设定。因为在以色列没有任何人挣着自认为理应得到的数目,这就导致需要一个苏式工资系统,对所有职业设定固定工资,从罢工的人群开始,比如医生们。 In other words, wages in the opinion of the protesters do not have to clear markets and signal where shortages and surpluses are. Wages should be arbitrary measures of "fairness." Try to imagine just what happens when half the jobs in Israel attract no applicants because the fair wages there are insufficient to draw workers, while the other jobs have six applicants for each position because the fair wages there are much too high to clear the market. Try to imagine what life would be like if a Marxist sociologist or a caring social worker were appointed as economic dictator to decide all economic matters and decisions in Zion. 另一方面,抗议者认为工资没必要让市场均衡并发挥信号作用,以显示何处短缺,何处过剩。工资应该是“公平”的武断标准。试想以色列有一半职位都不能吸引到申请者,因为所谓的公平工资不能够吸引工人,而同时以色列的另外一半工作每个职位有六个申请人,因为所谓的公平工资远高于市场均衡水平,将会发生什么?试想一个马克思主义社会学家或一个慈善社工被任命为经济独裁者,来负责锡安的所有经济事务和决策,会发生什么? Every society on earth and every society in human history has people living in hardship and in poverty. There are poor people in all countries, including Scandinavia. Mankind has not discovered an innovation that eliminates poverty and hardship. 地球上的每个社会,乃至人类历史上每个社会,都有生活在艰难困苦中的人们。所有的国家都有穷人,包括斯堪迪纳维亚。人类尚未能发现一种创新,能消灭贫穷和困苦。 Yet the caring dreamers about Bolshevism along Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv (note the irony of the name) demand an instant magic pill that will eliminate all hardship and inequality. And the failure of the government to provide one is proof that the evil "tycoons" are in charge and preventing the government from serving the people. 然而,和布尔什维克主义相关的爱心白日梦人士沿着特拉维夫的罗斯柴尔德大道(请注意这街名的讽刺性)要求一个立即奏效的神奇药方,来消除贫穷和困苦。而政府没能提供这个药方,则是邪恶的“权贵”在掌权并阻止政府服务人民的证据。 "People not profits" is the slogan of choice used by those who are too stupid to understand that the only way to make producers serve the people and produce things the people want is for them to make profits doing so. Outlaw profits and you create mass starvation. 让厂商服务人民和创造人民需要的产品的唯一途径是让他们借此获得利润,而太蠢不能理解这点的人们则打出了“为人民而不是为利润”的口号。取缔利润,那么你就创造了大饥荒。 The tycoon fetish continues to dominate the protests. I have suggested that Mikey Lerner even change the name of his idiotic magazine from Tikkun to Tycoon. Many Israeli tycoons, at least outside high-tech, were made tycoons because of sweetheart deals with the political establishment, particularly back in the days of MAPAI socialism. 权贵迷信继续主导着这些抗议。我已经建议Mikey Lerner把他白痴杂志的名字从改正(Tikkun )改为权贵(Tycoon )。很多以色列的权贵,至少在高科技产业之外,是被政治既得利益者的幕后交易创造出来的,尤其是回溯到工党社会主义时期。 The other irony is that the only "reform" the protesters have extracted from Netanyahu is the setting up of "Planning Speed-up Commissions." And the most ironic part of this irony is that the main effect of those commissions will be to fatten up the "tycoons." 更讽刺的是,抗议者从内塔尼亚胡那里得到的唯一“改革”就是设立一些“规划加速委员会”。并且这一讽刺的最尖锐的部分是:这些委员会的主要作用将是让“权贵”脑满肠肥。 Israel's municipal planning and regulation of construction is a fever swamp of corruption and inefficiency. It takes two years to get a license to put windows in your porch and you may have to bribe city officials to get it. The endless bureaucratic pencil pushing and bickering does indeed slow down construction, affecting housing prices and availability. 以色列的建筑业市政规划管理部门是腐败和低效的温床。给你的门廊加上窗户需要两年时间办理许可证,而你可能不得不贿赂市政官员来拿到它。无穷的官僚系统的文书案牍和磨嘴皮的确减慢了建筑业发展,影响了房屋的价格和供给。 At the same time, these planning dinosaurs DO allow a certain amount of public involvement and intervention, especially when it comes to combating corrupt sweetheart dirty deals between municipalities and construction contractor "tycoons." Corrupt municipal officials are constantly attempting to get approval for construction projects that will enrich contractor cronies, even when these are illegal, harmful to the public interest, ugly, and in some case built on public park lands and beaches. The officials attempt to bend zoning laws and regulations to "help their buddies." 同时,这些计划经济恐龙允许一定的公共介入和干涉,尤其是人们反对市政机构和有背景的建筑承包商之间的内幕交易的时候。腐败的市政官员一直试图为建筑项目拿到许可,这些项目可以让有关系的承包商致富,即使它们是非法可耻的,有害公共利益的,而且有时是在公园和公共海滩上建造。这些官员试图扭曲法律和规制,来“帮助他们的兄弟”。 As a sop to the demonstrators, Netanyahu has proposed and the Knesset just passed the creation of "Planning Speed-Up Commissions," to cut through the red tape and bureaucracy. The problem with the idea is simple: it will still take two years and possibly some bribes if you want to put a window pane on your porch. 作为对示威者的安抚,内塔尼亚胡提出了创建一些“规划加速委员会”,议会批准了这个动议,想要削减繁文缛节和官僚主义。这个主意的缺陷很明了:未来如果你想要在自己的门廊上开一扇窗,还是需要两年,也许还要一些贿赂。 But the oligarchs will be able to use the Speed Up mechanism to push aside public opposition and suppress sensible zoning and planning regulations. The oligarchs are also being offered by Netanyahu public lands at below-market prices, where Netanyahu insists this will lower housing prices. The reality, as any freshman econ student can tell you, is that it will not lower housing prices by a shekel, and instead will only inflate the profits of the cronies getting in on the deal. 但寡头们将能用加速机制来置公众抗议于不顾,压制合理的区域规划和管制。寡头也能够拿到内塔尼亚胡提供的低于市场价的公地,内塔尼亚胡坚称这能降低房价。就如任何经济系一年级学生能告诉你的那样,事实是这不会让房价降低一个子儿,反倒会增加参与项目的关系户公司的利润。 ABOUT STEVEN PLAUT 关于作者 Steven Plaut is a native Philadelphian who teaches business finance and economics at the University of Haifa in Israel.  He holds a PhD in economics from Princeton.  He is author of the David Horowitz Freedom Center booklets about the Hamas  and Jewish Enablers of the War against Israel. Steven Plaut是一位土生土长的费城人。他在以色列的海法大学教授商务金融和经济学。他拥有普林斯顿经济学博士学位。他是David Horowitz自由中心的作者,撰写了一些小册子,讲述哈马斯和一些犹太人积极促成针对以色列的战争。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]隐藏在好莱坞的反动派

Breitbart PolitiCon Panel: Shapiro, Milo, Davi, Marlow Wage ‘Hollywood Wars’
布莱巴特PolitiCon小组座谈:“好莱坞战争”

作者: Daniel Nussbaum @ 2015-10-13
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值)
来源:Breitbart,http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/13/breitbart-politicon-panel-shapiro-milo-davi-marlow-wage-hollywood-wars/

LOS ANGELES — If politics is truly located “downstream” from culture — as the late Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying— then three editors from Breitbart News and one Hollywood screen legend spent the afternoon on Friday knee-deep in the water, wading upstream through the muck.

洛杉矶报道——如果政治确实位于文化的“下游”——如已故的安德鲁·布莱巴特喜欢说的那样——那么来自“布莱巴特新闻网”的三位编辑和来自好莱坞的一位荧幕传奇人物本周五下午就是在没膝深的水中趟着淤泥逆流跋涉。

Three firebrand culture warriors–Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, editor Milo Yiannopolous, and actor/singer/director/Big Hollywood contributor Robert Davi–took the stage Friday a(more...)

标签: | |
7080
Breitbart PolitiCon Panel: Shapiro, Milo, Davi, Marlow Wage ‘Hollywood Wars’ 布莱巴特PolitiCon小组座谈:“好莱坞战争” 作者: Daniel Nussbaum @ 2015-10-13 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:混乱阈值(@混乱阈值) 来源:Breitbart,http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/13/breitbart-politicon-panel-shapiro-milo-davi-marlow-wage-hollywood-wars/ LOS ANGELES — If politics is truly located “downstream” from culture — as the late Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying— then three editors from Breitbart News and one Hollywood screen legend spent the afternoon on Friday knee-deep in the water, wading upstream through the muck. 洛杉矶报道——如果政治确实位于文化的“下游”——如已故的安德鲁·布莱巴特喜欢说的那样——那么来自“布莱巴特新闻网”的三位编辑和来自好莱坞的一位荧幕传奇人物本周五下午就是在没膝深的水中趟着淤泥逆流跋涉。 Three firebrand culture warriors–Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, editor Milo Yiannopolous, and actor/singer/director/Big Hollywood contributor Robert Davi–took the stage Friday at PolitiCon for a panel titled “The Hollywood Wars.” Led by moderator and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, the panel deconstructed Hollywood’s impact on politics and offered their own predictions for what that influence might look like in the future. 三位热情充沛的文化战士——“布莱巴特”高级特约编辑Ben Shapiro,编辑Milo Yiannopolous和演员/歌手/导演/“大好莱坞”栏目撰稿人Robert Davi,周五登上PolitiCon,举行了一场名为“好莱坞战争”的小组座谈。主持人由“布莱巴特”总编辑Alex Marlow担任。这次座谈解构了好莱坞对政治的影响,并就这一影响未来走向如何给出了各自的预测。 The discussion began with the idea that conservative actors, writers, producers, and executives are routinely blackballed by a hostile liberal Hollywood system–an idea that Davi, as a conservative actor with more than 130 credits under his belt, was uniquely qualified to weigh in on. 座谈首先讨论的是这样一个观点:保守派演员、编剧、制片人和监制经常遭到满怀敌意的好莱坞自由派体制的排挤。作为一个拥有130多部作品的保守派演员,Davi特别有资格就此观点发表意见。 “I would think so,” Davi confirmed, before explaining: “You’re just not invited to the party. You’re not going to the card games, or the fundraisers… All business is social, especially entertainment. ‘We’re doing this film, do you wanna be in it?’ But then if you’re not in their group, you’re not going to get it.” “我认为确实如此,”在加以解释之前,Davi确认了这个观点:“他们不会邀请你去参加派对。你没法去打牌,也没法参加筹款会……一切行业都是社会性的,娱乐业尤其如此。‘我们要搞个电影,你想演吗?’但如果你不是他们那个圈子里的,你就没得机会。” “Also, Hollywood is a bunch of thieves,” he added. “They’re just like politicians, they’re corrupt. You go in and say, ‘I have an idea.’ Two years later, you’ll see it on some cable network, your exact idea that’s been cannibalized in some way.” “另外,好莱坞就是一群小偷,”他补充说。“他们就跟政客一样,一群腐败分子。你要是跟他们说‘我有个想法’。两年以后,你就能在某个有线电视上看到它了,那就是你的想法,被他们想个办法给改编利用了。” Marlow asked Shapiro if the cultural landscape had changed significantly since the release of his 2012 book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, which examines how liberal gatekeepers use television to shape culture in America. Shapiro在2012年出了一本书,《黄金时段的宣传:关于左派如何占领你的电视的好莱坞真实故事》,讨论了自由派看门人如何利用电视来塑造美国文化。Marlow问到,自该书出版以来,文化地景是否有了很大的改变? “Obviously, there’s a tremendous amount of bias in Hollywood,” Shapiro said. “It’s quite open, actually. You just have to be a leftist in order to see it, because people who discriminate don’t typically tell people they’re discriminating against that they’re victims of discrimination.” “显然,好莱坞存在巨大的偏见,”Shapiro说。“实际上,这是相当公开的。只是你需要是个左派才能看到这一点,因为歧视者通常并不会告诉被歧视者说他们是歧视受害者。” Shapiro added that in Hollywood, “it’s not a question of leftist versus conservative, it’s a question of human versus non-human.” Shapiro补充说,在好莱坞,“问题就不是左派vs. 保守派,而是人类 vs. 非人。”
You either agree with the people in Hollywood, which makes you human, or you disagree with the people in Hollywood which means you’re somewhat less than human. And the typical kind of litmus test right now is gay marriage. If you’re pro-gay marriage, then you’re a wonderful and decent human being. If you’re anti-gay marriage, then you’re a Nazi. And you will not work. “要么你同意好莱坞的人,那样的话你就是人;要么你不同意好莱坞的人,那样的话你就比人低一等。目前典型的试金石就是同性婚姻。如果你支持同性婚姻,那你就是个善良体面的好人。如果你反对同性婚姻,那你就是个纳粹分子。并且你没法工作。 There are certain positions you can hold as a conservative, abortion is getting closer to acceptable in Hollywood if you’re pro-life, but if you’re someone who believes that traditional marriage is superior to homosexual marriage, then that is obviously springing from your inherent bigotry, and you must be cast out like a leper. “作为一个保守派,有些立场你可以持有,比如如果你反对堕胎,那么好莱坞只是个对堕胎变得更宽容的地方,但如果你相信传统婚姻比同性婚姻要优越,那这显然源自你内在的顽固偏执,必须要像对待麻风病人一样把你驱逐。”
By now, the rather large room hosting the panel on the second floor of the Los Angeles Convention Center had begun to fill up. 这时候,举办座谈的这间位于洛杉矶会议中心二层的颇为宽敞的会议室已经开始坐满。 The conversation swung to Lena Dunham and the notion that Hollywood insists on forcing Americans to care about hyper-liberal, “hip” actresses even when nobody watches their shows. Yiannopoulos said that millennials, the very target demographic that Dunham’s show Girls looks to capture, especially don’t care about her show, or about any TV, for that matter. 讨论转到了Lena Dunham身上,大家论及这样一个想法:好莱坞坚持强迫美国人去在乎那些狂热自由派的“嬉皮”女演员,即使压根没人看她们的表演。Yiannopoulos说,“千禧一代”,也正就是Dunham的电视剧《衰姐们》想要吸引的目标人口群体,恰好特别不关心她的剧,当然其实他们是不关心任何电视。 “[Millennials] are not in the slightest bit interested in tuning into her show,” Yiannopoulos said.“They’re not interested in anything, not Empire, not Breaking Bad. Hollywood doesn’t have the same purchase over them.” “千禧一代压根对她的电视剧没有一丝一毫兴趣,”Yiannopoulos说。“他们对一切都不感兴趣,管他《嘻哈帝国》也好,《绝命毒师》也好。好莱坞对他们无能为力。” Instead, he argues, they’re increasingly playing video games and creating content themselves, most of it on the Internet. But even video games have come under fire from leftist social justice elements, something Yiannopoulos has spent much of the past year documenting. And even though the video game industry is now bigger than Hollywood, Yiannopoulos lamented that, as with Hollywood, the political right is “letting it go” on video games. 他认为,取而代之的是,他们现在越来越多玩电子游戏、自己制作内容,而且大都在网上完成。不过,即使是电子游戏也已经处于左派社会正义分子的炮火之下,Yiannopoulos去年有很长一段时间就在记录这个现象。尽管电子游戏产业现在比好莱坞还大,Yianopoulos却哀叹,跟好莱坞一样,政治右派在电子游戏上也在“放手”。 “The left is engaged in this process of attacking gamers and readers for imagined sins like racism, sexism, and transphobia on the basis that playing a game online can make you a worse person in real life,” he said. “[The right] is not fighting on video games.” “左派正在以想象的罪名攻击游戏玩家和读者,诸如种族主义、性别歧视和变性恐惧,理由是玩在线游戏能让你在现实生活中变坏,”他说。“右派并没有在电子游戏问题上进行反击。” The discussion then focused on the tools of narrative, which the panel agreed have a conservative bias. 随后,讨论聚焦于叙事工具,小组成员一致认为,现在的叙事工具对保守派存在偏见。 “The left has taken all these right-wing tropes that they reject, and then they turn around and use them in their films,” said Shapiro. “The left uses the right’s tools and the right uses the left’s tools, and the right loses with the right message and the wrong tools, and the left wins with the wrong message and the right tools.” “左派已经把所有他们反对的右派使用的修辞手法占为己有,然后一转身将之用到了自己的电影中,”Shapiro说。“左派用了右派的工具,右派则用左派的工具。右派用正确的信息加上错误的工具而失败了,左派则用错误的信息加上正确的工具而成功了。” “I look at it through a whole different prism,” added Davi. “In the past you had films like Death Wish and Dirty Harry. There’s something I have to go back to, when Cecil B. DeMille made the Ten Commandments. That was a big cultural moment; Judeo-Christian values at its apex… When that Noah film came out, there was a secularization in that experience.” “我是透过一个完全不同的棱镜来看待这一点的,”Davi补充说。“过去,我们有像《猛龙怪客》和《警探哈里》这样的电影。有种东西我必须回头去找,回到Cecil B. Demille制作《十诫》的时候。那可是个重大的文化节点;犹太—基督教价值观达到了顶峰……当《诺亚》那部电影出来的时候,影视界经历了一次世俗化。” Still, Yiannopoulos sounded an optimistic note when he suggested that “culture is moving in a good direction,” mostly due to the rise of video games. He argued that, unlike Hollywood, video games promote conservative and libertarian values that are “baked into” the experience. 不过,Yiannopoulos还是发出了一个乐观的音符,他认为,主要由于电子游戏的兴起,“文化正在向一个好的方向前进”。他认为,电子游戏与好莱坞不同,保守派和自由意志主义的价值观“植入了”在玩游戏的体验中并得以推广。 “There’s very little you can do to break that, however much messaging, however many paraplegic Armenian lesbians you put on Level 17,” he added. “There is a limit to how many leftist tropes and messages you can shoehorn in to a game about killing prostitutes, or shooting space aliens.” “不管在游戏中出现多少信息,不管在游戏关卡里放多少半身瘫痪的美国女同,都很难取得左派想要的效果”他补充说。“对于一个内容是杀害妓女或者射杀太空外星人的游戏,能往里头塞的左派修辞和信息毕竟有限。” Because politics are truly downstream from culture, the conversation was destined to end up on Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. 由于政治确实位于文化的下游,讨论就注定要以共和党总统竞选领跑者Donald Trump作为最后一个话题。 Davi praised Trump’s “authenticity” and said he’d recently been in New York City, where he’d heard both a Pakistani taxi driver with six kids and women in their 20s and 30s say they were for Trump. Davi赞扬了Trump的“真实”,并说他最近刚到过纽约市,他在那听到一个有6个孩子的巴基斯坦的士司机和一群20或30多岁的女士,都声称自己支持Trump。 “If I was looking at all these politicians like I was an acting coach, and they’ve all said the same thing; one speaks like a Harvard law degree that’s been well-prepped… and I’ve heard them say the right things, and do nothing! They get in office, and do absolutely not a thing.” “如果我把自己当成一个表演教练来看这些政客,那么他们所有人说的都是一样的;都是那种准备良好的哈佛法律学位获得者的说话方式……我听他们说过各种正确的话,却没做任何事!他们上台了,然后绝对不做任何事。” “Trump captures the imagination of the public,” Davi added. “There’s a likability factor that’s unconscionable.” “Trump抓住了大众的想象力,”Davi补充说。“他有种不合情理的可爱因素。” “His name recognition makes a massive difference, because when you know someone, you’re willing to cut them some slack,” added Shapiro. “Everybody feels like they know Trump. He’ll never sink below 15 percent in the polls, kind of like Hillary.” “他的知名度影响很大,因为如果你认识某人,你就会愿意对他加以优待,”Shapiro补充说。“人人都觉得自己认识Trump。他的民调绝对不会掉到15%以下,这有点像Hillary。” Yiannopoulos said millennials particularly connect with Trump because his campaign has tapped into the generation’s defining characteristics of mischief, joy, and a ridicule of the establishment. Yiannopoulos说千禧一代跟Trump特别有共鸣,因为他的竞选已经契合了这一代人的本质特征,即胡闹、欢乐和对体制的嘲弄。 “He’s almost a comment section come to life, and I mean that as a compliment,” Yiannopoulos said. “What I mean is he’s feisty, he’s irreverent, he’s rude: I think the guy’s brilliant. He speaks the way we all speak, if only we could get away with it. Look at the [political] figures who are rising and who are more popular than ever: they reject the language policing of the left.” “他几乎就是个活的留言板,我说这个是表示赞扬,”Yiannopoulos说。“我的意思是,他很活跃,很不敬,很粗鲁;我觉得这人太赞了。他说话就跟我们没顾忌地说话一样,但我们会有种种顾忌。看看那些正在上升的和比以往任何时候都更受欢迎的(政治)人物:他们拒绝左派的语言监督。” Milo added that the left’s preferred tactic for ending debate, by branding their opponents “racist” or “transphobic,” is becoming increasingly ineffective as the cultural climate slowly changes: “When they come at you and call you a misogynist, or a racist, or a transphobe, nothing bad happens if you just laugh at them. In fact, people will like you even more. And I think Trump is tapping in to that natural sense of defiance and mischief and irreverence that people now feel.” Milo补充说,随着文化气候的缓慢变迁,左派最爱用的一个用于结束辩论的伎俩——给他们的对手贴上“种族主义者”或“变性恐惧”的标签——现在正日益丧失效果。“当他们走过来把你称作厌女者,或种族主义者,或变性恐惧,如果你只是笑话他们一下,就不会有什么后果。事实上,人们会更加喜欢你。我认为Trump正在迎合人们现在感受到的那种蔑上、胡闹和不敬的自然意识。” (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]学术界的左倾已到了何种程度?

New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists
最近研究显示:保守派社会心理学家现存8位

作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2016-1-7
译者:Marcel ZHANG(@马赫塞勒张)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/

Just how much viewpoint diversity do we have in social psychology? In 2011 nobody knew, so I asked 30 of my friends in the field to name a conservative. They came up with several names, but only one suspect admitted, under gentle interrogation, to being right of center.

社会心理学领域到底有多大的观点多样性?2011年时还没人知道,所以我询问了30个该领域的朋友,让他们举出一位保守派。结果他们提到了好几个名字,但在温和的盘问之下,只有一位嫌疑人承认了自己的政治倾向是中间偏右的。

A few months later I gave a talk at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which I pointed out the field’s political imbalance and why this was a threat to the quality of our research.

几个月后,我在人格与社会心理学协会(SPSP)年会上发言时,指出了该领域的政治失衡现象,以及为什么这种现象会对我们的研究质量造成威胁。

I asked the thousand-or-so people in the audience to declare their politics with a show of hands, and I estimated that roughly 80% self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative or right of center.” That gives us a left: right ratio of 266 to one. I didn’t think the real ratio was that high; I knew that some conservatives in the audience were probably afraid to raise their hands.

我要求在场的约一千名听众举手表明自己的政治倾向,估计大略有80%的人认为自己是“自由派或者中间偏左派”,有2%(我数下来不多不少20个人)认为自己是“中立派或者温和派”,只有1%(12个人)自认自由意志主义者,如果直接取整的话,几乎0%(3个人)自认“保守派或者中间偏右派”。我们看到的是一个266:1的左右派比值。我不认为真实的比值会如此之高,我知道当时听众席里有些保守派可能会怯于举手。

Some of my colleagues questioned the validity of such a simple and public method, but Yoel Inbar and Yoris Lammers conducted a more thorough and anonymous survey of the SPSP email list later that year, and they too found a very lopsided political ratio: 85% of the 291 respondents self-identified as liberal overall, and only 6% identified as conservative.

有些同事对我这种简易公开方式的有效性提出了质疑。但是,同年晚些时候,Yoel Inbar 和 Yoris Lammers在该协会邮件组中进行了一场更加彻底的匿名调查,结果他们也发现了一边倒的政见比值:总共291个调查对象中,有85%认为自己基本可以算作自由派,而只有6%的调查对象认为自己是保守派。

That gives us our first good estimate of the left-right ratio in social psychology: fourteen to one. It’s a much more valid method than my “show of hands” (which was(more...)

标签: | | |
6988
New Study Indicates Existence of Eight Conservative Social Psychologists 最近研究显示:保守派社会心理学家现存8位 作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2016-1-7 译者:Marcel ZHANG(@马赫塞勒张) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/ Just how much viewpoint diversity do we have in social psychology? In 2011 nobody knew, so I asked 30 of my friends in the field to name a conservative. They came up with several names, but only one suspect admitted, under gentle interrogation, to being right of center. 社会心理学领域到底有多大的观点多样性?2011年时还没人知道,所以我询问了30个该领域的朋友,让他们举出一位保守派。结果他们提到了好几个名字,但在温和的盘问之下,只有一位嫌疑人承认了自己的政治倾向是中间偏右的。 A few months later I gave a talk at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in which I pointed out the field’s political imbalance and why this was a threat to the quality of our research. 几个月后,我在人格与社会心理学协会(SPSP)年会上发言时,指出了该领域的政治失衡现象,以及为什么这种现象会对我们的研究质量造成威胁。 I asked the thousand-or-so people in the audience to declare their politics with a show of hands, and I estimated that roughly 80% self-identified as “liberal or left of center,” 2% (I counted exactly 20 hands) identified as “centrist or moderate,” 1% (12 hands) identified as libertarian, and, rounding to the nearest integer, zero percent (3 hands) identified as “conservative or right of center.” That gives us a left: right ratio of 266 to one. I didn’t think the real ratio was that high; I knew that some conservatives in the audience were probably afraid to raise their hands. 我要求在场的约一千名听众举手表明自己的政治倾向,估计大略有80%的人认为自己是“自由派或者中间偏左派”,有2%(我数下来不多不少20个人)认为自己是“中立派或者温和派”,只有1%(12个人)自认自由意志主义者,如果直接取整的话,几乎0%(3个人)自认“保守派或者中间偏右派”。我们看到的是一个266:1的左右派比值。我不认为真实的比值会如此之高,我知道当时听众席里有些保守派可能会怯于举手。 Some of my colleagues questioned the validity of such a simple and public method, but Yoel Inbar and Yoris Lammers conducted a more thorough and anonymous survey of the SPSP email list later that year, and they too found a very lopsided political ratio: 85% of the 291 respondents self-identified as liberal overall, and only 6% identified as conservative. 有些同事对我这种简易公开方式的有效性提出了质疑。但是,同年晚些时候,Yoel Inbar 和 Yoris Lammers在该协会邮件组中进行了一场更加彻底的匿名调查,结果他们也发现了一边倒的政见比值:总共291个调查对象中,有85%认为自己基本可以算作自由派,而只有6%的调查对象认为自己是保守派。 That gives us our first good estimate of the left-right ratio in social psychology: fourteen to one. It’s a much more valid method than my “show of hands” (which was intended as a rhetorical device, not a real study). But still, we need more data, and we need to try more ways of asking the questions. 这就给我们提供了社会心理学界中左右派比值的第一份合理估计:14:1。这就比我之前的“举手”办法要可靠多了(当时我只是为了表明观点,并非真正的学术研究)。但是话说回来,我们还是需要更多的数据,而且需要尝试更多的调查途径。 A new data set has come in. Bill von Hippel and David Buss surveyed the membership of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology. That’s a professional society composed of the most active researchers in the field who are at least five years post-PhD. It’s very selective – you must be nominated by a current member and approved by a committee before you can join. 现在我们有了一组新数据。Bill von Hippel和David Buss调查了实验社会心理学会(SESP)的全体会员。这是个由该领域最活跃的研究者组成的专业协会,全体成员都至少已博士毕业5年。他们都是经过精挑细选的,入会必须获得会员提名且通过一个委员会的批准。 Von Hippel and Buss sent a web survey to the 900 members of SESP and got a response rate of 37% (335 responses). So this is a good sample of the mid-level and senior people (average age 51) who produce most of the research in social psychology. Von Hippel和Buss向该学会的900名会员发送了网上调查问卷,回应率为37%(共335个回应者)。所以,对于在社会心理学领域贡献了绝大部分研究的中高级人员(平均年龄51岁)而言,这是一个很不错的样本。 Von Hippel and Buss were surveying the members’ views about evolution, to try to understand the reasons why many social psychologists distrust or dislike evolutionary psychology. At the end of the survey, they happened to include a very good set of measures of political identity. Not just self-descriptions, but also whom the person voted for in the 2012 US Presidential election. And they asked nine questions about politically valenced policy questions, such as “Do you support gun control?” “Do you support gay marriage?” and “Do you support a woman’s right to get an abortion?” Von Hippel和Buss的问卷要调查的是会员们对进化问题的观点,试图了解许多社会心理学家怀疑或厌恶进化心理学的原因。在问卷最后一部分,他们碰巧设置了一组很棒的政治认同鉴别方法。不仅仅包括自我描述,而且还问到了他们在2012年美国大选中的投票对象。此外他们还提出了9个已成为政治心理价(valence)的政策问题【编注:心理价(valence)是指那些会恒常的引发正面或负面情绪的东西、事情或特征】,比如“你是否支持枪支管制”,“你是否支持同性婚姻”和“你是否支持妇女堕胎权”等等。 In a demonstration of the new openness and transparency that is spreading in social psychology, Von Hippel and Buss sent their raw data file and a summary report to all the members of SESP, to thank us for our participation in the survey. They noted that their preliminary analysis showed a massive leftward tilt in the field – only four had voted for Romney. Von Hippel和Buss体现了新近在社会心理学界蔚然成风的公开透明精神,将他们的原始数据文件和总结报告发送给了SESP的全体会员,以感谢我们在这场调查研究中的积极参与。他们指出,他们的初步分析显示出了该领域严重左倾的现象——只有四个人曾给罗姆尼投过票。 I then emailed them and asked if I could write up further analyses of the political questions and post them at Heterodox Academy. They generously said yes, and then went ahead and made all the relevant files available to the world at the Open Science Framework (you can download them all here). 而后我通过电邮联系了他们,问我能不能就这些政治问题写个深度分析并发到异端学院(Heterodox Academy)网站上。他们很大方地同意了,紧接着就把相关文件发到开放科学框架网(Open Science Framework)上并开放了下载(你们可以在这个网站下载全部资料https://osf.io/ebvtq/)。 So here are the results, on the political distribution only. (Von Hippel and Buss will publish a very interesting paper on their main findings about evolution and morality in a few months). There are three ways we can graph the data, based on three ways that participants revealed their political orientation. 下面就是仅涉及政见分布问题的成果了。(Von Hippel和Buss将会在几个月后发表一篇非常有意思的论文,主题是他们在进化和道德方面的主要发现。)依照参与者透露他们政治倾向的三种途径,我们也可以通过三种方式来将数据图表化。 1)Self-descriptions of political identity: 36 to one. 1)自我描述的政治认同:36:1。 One item asked “Where would you put yourself on a continuum from liberal to conservative?” The 11 scale points were labeled “very liberal” on the left-most point and “very conservative” on the right-most point. If we do a simple frequency plot (a graph of how many people chose each of the 11 possible responses) we get the following: 有一道题问到:“在自由派和保守派之间这个连续区间内,你会将自己定位于何处?”在这11个选项中,最左端的那个被标为“极端自由派”,最右端则为“极端保守派”。如果我们绘制一个频率分布直方图(一个体现11个选项对应人数的图表),则得下图: vonhippel.figure1-1

【图表一:政治倾向自评分】

The graph shows that 291 of the 326 people who responded to this question picked a left-of-center label (that’s 89.3%), and only 8 people (2.5%) picked a right of center label, giving us a Left to Right ratio of 36 to one. This is much higher than that found by Inbar and Lammers. The main source of political diversity appears to be the 27 people (including me) who self-identified as centrists. 图表显示,该题的326位回答者中有291位选择了中间偏左标签(占总数89.3%),而只有8位选择了中间偏右标签(占总数2.5%),这就得出了一个36:1的左右派比值。这比Inbar和Lammers发现的比值还高。政治多样性主要基于27位自我定义为中间派的回答者(包括本人在内)。 2)Presidential voting: 76 to one. 2)总统选举投票:76:1。 Another item asked: “Who did you vote for in the last presidential election (if you are not a US citizen, or if you did not vote, who would you have voted for if you had voted)? The options were: “Obama,” “Romney,” or “Other.” If we do a frequency plot of the 3 possible choices we get this: 另有一道题问到:“在上次总统大选中你把选票投给了谁(如果你不是美国公民,或者你并未投票的话,假设让你投票,你可能会投给谁)?”选项有这么几个:“奥巴马”、“罗姆尼”或“其他”。如果我们依照这三个选项绘制频率分布直方图,则得下图: vonhippel.figure2

【图表二:2012年美国总统大选】

The graph shows that 305 of the 322 people (94.7%) who responded to this question voted for Obama, 4 (1.2%) voted for Romney, and 13 (4.0%) said they voted for another candidate. This gives us a Democrat to Republican ratio of 76 to one. 图表显示,该题的322位回答者中有305位(占94.7%)投给了奥巴马,4位(占1.2%)投给了罗姆尼,而有13位(占4.0%)回答者投给了其他总统候选人。这就得出了一个76:1的“驴象比”比值。 3)Views on political issues: 314 to one. 3)政治议题上的观点:314:1。 A third way of graphing the viewpoint diversity of these senior social psychologists is by computing an average score across all 9 of the politically valenced policy items. For each one, the 11 point response scale was labeled “strongly oppose” on the left-most point and “strongly support” on the right-most point. 将这些资深社会心理学家的观点多元状况图表化的第三条途径,就是算出他们在九道政治心理价问题上的平均得分。每个问题的答案选项都有11个,最左端的为“强烈反对”,最右端为“强烈支持”。 I converted all responses to the same 11 point scale used in figure 1 so that “strongly supporting” the progressive position (e.g., pro-choice) was scored as -5 and “strongly supporting” the conservative position (e.g., prayer in school) was scored as +5. That puts the leftists on the left and the rightists on the right of the graph. Here’s the graph: 我将所有回答都转换成与图表1中的11个选项一一对应,也就是说,“强烈支持”进步派立场的(比如主张堕胎权)就会被记作-5分,而“强烈支持”保守派立场(比如支持校内祷告)就会被记作5分。这样就可以在图表上把左派标到左侧,右派标到右侧。图表如下: vonhippel.figure3

【图表三:对九个政治议题的观点】

I counted anyone whose average score fell between -1.0 and +1.0 (inclusive) as a centrist. The graph shows that 314 of the 327 participants (96.0%) had an average score below -1.0 (i.e., left of center), one had an average score above +1.0 (i.e., right of center), and 12 were centrists. That gives us a Left to Right ratio of 314 to one. 我将所有平均得分在-1.0与1.0之间的参与者都算作中间派。图表显示,在327名参与者中有314位(占96.0%)的平均得分低于-1.0(即中间偏左),只有一位参与者的平均得分高于1.0(即中间偏右),另外还有12位是中间派。这样我们就得出了一个314:1的左右派比值。 What does this mean? 这意味着什么? However you measure it, and for all samples measured so far, social psychology leans heavily to the left and has very few people right of center. Von Hippel and Buss’s new data confirms the story that a few of us told in a recent paper (Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim & Tetlock, 2015) in which we created the graph below, which shows just how fast psychology has been moving to the left since the 1990s. The ratio of Democrats to Republicans (diamonds) and liberals to conservatives (circles) was roughly 3 to 1 for most of the 20th century. But it skyrockets beginning in the 1990s as the Greatest Generation retires and the Baby Boomers take over. 不论你如何衡量,就目前已经测得的样本来看,社会心理学界已经左倾得非常严重了,只有很少人是中间偏右的。Von Hippel和Buss的新数据也证实了我们几个在最近的一篇论文(Duarte, Crawford, Stern, Haidt, Jussim和Tetlock于2015年发表)里说到的情况,文中我们绘制了下面这张图表,它显示了从1990年代起心理学界是以何等之快的速度左倾化的。“驴象比”(在图中以方块示出)和“左右比”(在图中以圆圈示出)比值在上个世纪基本为3:1。但随着“最伟大世代”【编注:作家Tom Brokaw将成长于大萧条年代,接着参加二战,随后又经历了战后大繁荣的那一代人称为最伟大一代】的退休和婴儿潮一代的接班,这个比值在90年代开始直线窜升。 diversity-graph

【图表四: 1920年代起学院心理学家左右派比值的攀升。(详见Duarte等人在2015年发表的论文)】

Why does this matter? 这为什么重要? Most people know that professors in America, and in most countries, generally vote for left-leaning parties and policies. But few people realize just how fast things have changed since the 1990s. An academic field that leans left (or right) can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and institutionalized disconfirmation break down. Research on politically controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favored conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers and editors. 美国以及大多数国家的教授们一般都会支持左翼政党或政策,这没什么新鲜,但鲜为人知的是, 1990年代以来事态是以何其快的速度转变着。只要意识形态主张或者出于政治目的的研究仍必然会遭到挑战,那么一个左倾(或右倾)的学术领域就还能运转。但是当一个学术领域从左倾发展到铁板一块的左翼时,同行评议或者体制化否证的正常保障监督措施就会崩溃。对在政治上有争议的论题的研究会变得不再可靠,因为存在政治偏袒的结论现在受到的审查少之又少,而政治不正确的发现则需要排除万难,须要遭受评议人和编辑们发出的种种带有政治动机和敌意的论证。 I consider the rapid loss of political diversity, over the last 20 years, to be the second-greatest existential threat to the field of social psychology, after the “replication crisis.” The field is responding constructively to the replication crisis. Will it also attend to its political diversity crisis? Or will it continue to think of diversity only in terms of the demographic categories that most matter to people on the left: race, gender and sexual orientation? 我将过去二十年间发生的这次政见多样性的迅速退减视为,社会心理学领域的第二大致命威胁,仅次于“可重复性危机”。这个领域正在积极地应对可重复性危机,那么它也会去解决它的政见多样性危机吗?还是说,它仍旧只会从人口统计学这个对左派人士来说至关重要的角度来考虑多样性?只会考虑种族、性别和性向问题? I don’t mean to single out social psychology. It is the field that I know best, but what we have learned at Heterodox Academy is that this problem, this rapid shift to political purity, has happened to most fields in the humanities and social sciences in just the last 2 decades. 我并不是故意要把社会心理学挑出来。这只是我最熟悉的领域,但我们在异端学院意识到了:这个问题,即政治单一化现象,仅在过去的短短20年内就在大部分人文社科领域都已经发生了。 An optimistic ending 一个乐观的结局 I would like to end by thanking my colleagues. I have been raising a fuss about these issues since 2011. In that time I also moved from the left to the center, politically. I am no longer a progressive. So you might expect that I’ve been ostracized, but I have not. Nothing bad has happened to me. 我想以我对同事们的感激来结尾。从2011年开始我就因为这些事搞得他们鸡犬不宁,那时候我也在政治倾向方面由左派转变为中间派。我不再是个进步主义者了。所以你可能以为我已经被排挤了,但是并没有,万事顺遂。 Some of my colleagues believe that the political imbalance is not a problem. But the majority response has been, roughly: “This is really interesting. We really truly value diversity, and we agree with you and your co-authors that diversity of viewpoints is the kind that confers the most benefits on groups. But gosh, how are we going to get more?” 我的有些同事觉得政见失衡没什么大不了的。但大多数回答大概是这样的:“这确实挺有意思的。我们的确很看重多样性,而且我们同意你和你的合著者的观点,观点多样性是那种可以为团体带来最大益处的东西。但是啊,我们怎么才能获取更多多样性呢?” That’s our mission at Heterodox Academy – to figure out how to get more. It will be hard, but it can and must be done. Please see our “solutions page.” 这就是我们在异端学院中的使命了,那就是搞清楚如何能获得更多的多样性。道路是曲折的,但前途是光明的。请参看我们的“方案页”。 Post script: Paul Krugman recently referred to us at Heterodox Academy as “outraged conservatives,” and he said that the leftward shift in the academy was really just the rightward shift of the Republican Party since the 1990s. He suggests that professors didn’t change their views on policy, they just stopped identifying as Republicans as the party went off the deep end. 附:Paul Krugman最近将我们这些异端学院上的人称为“愤怒的保守派”,他说1990年代以来学界的左转其实只是共和党的右转。他的言下之意是,教授们并没有改变过他们的政见,他们只是在共和党转入极端时不再自我标榜为共和派了而已。 There is surely some truth to Krugman’s argument, but that doesn’t negate our claim that the makeup of the professoriate really did change after the Greatest Generation retired. Krugman’s argument could not explain graph #3, for example, which shows just a single person with views on social issues that are right of center. Also, I should point out that most of us at Heterodox Academy are not conservatives, and if you read everything on our site, it will be hard to find evidence of “outrage.” Krugman的质疑确实反映了部分事实,但这并没有驳倒我们的主张,最伟大世代逝去之后教授阶层的组成结构确实发生了变化。比如,Krugman的质疑就没能解释图表三里只有一个人对偏右社会事件支持的现象。此外,我必须要指出,异端学院上的大多数人都不是保守派,而且如果读过我们网站上的所有文章的话,你会很难发现有“愤怒”的踪迹。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

进步分子入门教程

【2016-05-10】

@whigzhou: 纽约市政府出了名的替市民健康操心,香烟税全美最高,可乐要征税,饭馆餐桌上不许放盐瓶(不知后来实行没),就这么个慈爱政府,最近出了条规定,禁止酒吧酒保拒绝向孕妇售酒,说是喝酒对孕妇和胎儿的健康风险应该留给个人自己判断,哈哈,这耳光打得漂亮!我快爱上女权主义了~ http://t.cn/Rq3ncOi

@whigzhou: 【进步分子入门教程】当不同政治正确信条发生冲突时,请按如下原则决定哪个信条优先:

1)被指控性骚扰的男人必须有罪,但自称女人的男人进女厕(more...)

标签: | | |
7136
【2016-05-10】 @whigzhou: 纽约市政府出了名的替市民健康操心,香烟税全美最高,可乐要征税,饭馆餐桌上不许放盐瓶(不知后来实行没),就这么个慈爱政府,最近出了条规定,禁止酒吧酒保拒绝向孕妇售酒,说是喝酒对孕妇和胎儿的健康风险应该留给个人自己判断,哈哈,这耳光打得漂亮!我快爱上女权主义了~ http://t.cn/Rq3ncOi @whigzhou: 【进步分子入门教程】当不同政治正确信条发生冲突时,请按如下原则决定哪个信条优先: 1)被指控性骚扰的男人必须有罪,但自称女人的男人进女厕所不是性骚扰, 2)被指控性骚扰的男人必须有罪,但穆斯林不会强奸白女人, 3)打死黑人的警察不可能无辜,除非他是另一个黑人,而被打死的是个福音派基督徒。 4)少数群体在某个行业表现不佳或比例偏低一定是系统性歧视的结果,而不是禀赋差异的结果,除非这是个自由派占绝对多数的行业,比如学术界和好莱坞, 5)歧视同性恋这种事情绝不可容忍,除非发生在伊斯兰国家, 6)离开政府管制,个人无法为自己做出最有利的选择,除非这一选择只关乎性取向或性别认同,或者只涉及妇女, 6.5)当选择只关乎性取向或性别认同时,连儿童都具有健全的心智和良好的判断力,感谢上帝 7)其他任何时候不得感谢上帝
[译文]后现代主义又被剥了皮

Postmodernism Unpeeled
后现代主义又被剥了皮

作者:David Thompson与Stephen Hicks @ 2009-3-22
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou)
来源:David Thompson 博客,http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html

A discussion with Stephen Hicks.

与Stephen Hicks讨论。

“In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works.”

“因此,表现在政治形式上,后现代主义者的行为就像是典型的无良律师,一心想着打赢官司:真理和正义不是关键;相反,使用任何能够成功的修辞工具或策略才是关键。有时候相互矛盾的论证方式管用。有时候你的听众渴望自己属于某个小团体,这可以加以利用。有时候要表现得绝对权威,这有助于掩饰一个案子的虚弱。有时候则是纡尊降贵管用。”

Dr Stephen Hicks is Professor of Philosophy and Executive Director of the Centre for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College, Illinois. He is co-editor with David Kelley of Readings for Logical Analysis (W. W. Norton, 1998), and has published in academic journals as well as The Wall Street Journal, The Baltimore Sun, and Reader’s Digest. His book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault was published in 2004 by Scholargy Publishing and is now in its eighth printing. He is the author and narrator of a DVD documentary entitled Nietzsche and the Nazis, which was published in 2006 by Ockham’s Razor Publishing.

Stephen Hicks博士是伊利诺伊斯州罗克福德学院哲学教授、伦理学与企业家精神研究中心执行主任。他曾与David Kelly合作编辑有《逻辑分析读本》(1998),作品发表于众多学术期刊及《华尔街日报》《巴尔的摩太阳报》《读者文摘》等。其著作《解释后现代主义:从卢梭至福柯的怀疑主义与社会主义》于2004年由Scholargy出版社出版,如今已是第八次印刷。他还是题为《尼采与纳粹》的DVD纪录片的作者和解说,该纪录片于2006年由Ockham’s Razor出版社发行。

DT: In an exchange with Ophelia Benson, I mentioned Explaining Postmodernism and suggested one of the book’s main themes is that postmodernism marks a crisis of faith and a retreat from reality among the academic left. Is that a fair, if crude, summary?

DT【译注:即David Thompson,下同】:“在与Ophelia Benson的一次交流中,我提到了《解释后现代主义》一书,并提到,此书的一个主题就是后现代主义标志着一场信仰危机以及学院左派对于现实的一种逃避。这种总结算得上公平吗?即使过于直白。

SH: It is striking that the major postmodernists – Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty – are of the far left politically. And it is striking that all four are Philosophy Ph.D.s who reached deeply skeptical conclusions about our ability to come to know reality. So one of my four theses about postmodernism is that it develops from a double crisis – a crisis within philosophy about knowledge and a crisis within left politics about socialism.

SH【译注:即Stephen Hicks,下同】很令人震惊的是,主要的后现代主义者——米歇尔·福柯、雅克·德里达、让—弗朗索瓦·利奥塔、理查德·罗蒂——在政治上都是极左。同样令人震惊的是,这四个哲学博士都得出结论,极度怀疑我们认识实在的能力。所以,我所提出的关于后现代主义的四个主题之一是,它发源于一种双重危机——一面是哲学领域中的知识危机,一面是左派政治领域中的社会主义危机。

DT: It seems to me that in its broadest sense postmodernism is as much a rhetorical device as it is a set of theories and political stances. For instance, Slavoj Žižek can dismiss aspects of postmodern theorising while employing much the same manoeuvres in his own writing. Much of what he says is clever in a rhetorical sense, in terms of manoeuvring around a dubious and unproven premise, while being enormously tendentious or simply glib.

DT:在我看来,最广义而言,后现代主义既是一种修辞工具,也是一套理论和政治立场。比如,斯拉沃热·齐泽克能够在拒绝后现代理论若干方面的同时将同样的操控策略用于自己的写作中。从操控暧昧不明、未经验证的前提这个角度来看,他所说的很多东西从修辞上看非常聪明,但其内容的倾向性却非常明显或干脆就是耍嘴皮子。

If you don’t accept the premise – say, a tarted-up rehash of “false consciousness” or an antipathy towards capitalism – then what follows is unpersuasive, even absurd. Geoffrey Galt Harpham 标签: | |

6862
Postmodernism Unpeeled 后现代主义又被剥了皮 作者:David Thompson与Stephen Hicks @ 2009-3-22 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:Whig Zhou(@whigzhou) 来源:David Thompson 博客,http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/03/postmodernism-unpeeled.html A discussion with Stephen Hicks. 与Stephen Hicks讨论。 “In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works.” “因此,表现在政治形式上,后现代主义者的行为就像是典型的无良律师,一心想着打赢官司:真理和正义不是关键;相反,使用任何能够成功的修辞工具或策略才是关键。有时候相互矛盾的论证方式管用。有时候你的听众渴望自己属于某个小团体,这可以加以利用。有时候要表现得绝对权威,这有助于掩饰一个案子的虚弱。有时候则是纡尊降贵管用。” Dr Stephen Hicks is Professor of Philosophy and Executive Director of the Centre for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College, Illinois. He is co-editor with David Kelley of Readings for Logical Analysis (W. W. Norton, 1998), and has published in academic journals as well as The Wall Street Journal, The Baltimore Sun, and Reader's Digest. His book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault was published in 2004 by Scholargy Publishing and is now in its eighth printing. He is the author and narrator of a DVD documentary entitled Nietzsche and the Nazis, which was published in 2006 by Ockham’s Razor Publishing. Stephen Hicks博士是伊利诺伊斯州罗克福德学院哲学教授、伦理学与企业家精神研究中心执行主任。他曾与David Kelly合作编辑有《逻辑分析读本》(1998),作品发表于众多学术期刊及《华尔街日报》《巴尔的摩太阳报》《读者文摘》等。其著作《解释后现代主义:从卢梭至福柯的怀疑主义与社会主义》于2004年由Scholargy出版社出版,如今已是第八次印刷。他还是题为《尼采与纳粹》的DVD纪录片的作者和解说,该纪录片于2006年由Ockham’s Razor出版社发行。 DT: In an exchange with Ophelia Benson, I mentioned Explaining Postmodernism and suggested one of the book’s main themes is that postmodernism marks a crisis of faith and a retreat from reality among the academic left. Is that a fair, if crude, summary? DT【译注:即David Thompson,下同】:“在与Ophelia Benson的一次交流中,我提到了《解释后现代主义》一书,并提到,此书的一个主题就是后现代主义标志着一场信仰危机以及学院左派对于现实的一种逃避。这种总结算得上公平吗?即使过于直白。 SH: It is striking that the major postmodernists - Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty - are of the far left politically. And it is striking that all four are Philosophy Ph.D.s who reached deeply skeptical conclusions about our ability to come to know reality. So one of my four theses about postmodernism is that it develops from a double crisis - a crisis within philosophy about knowledge and a crisis within left politics about socialism. SH【译注:即Stephen Hicks,下同】很令人震惊的是,主要的后现代主义者——米歇尔·福柯、雅克·德里达、让—弗朗索瓦·利奥塔、理查德·罗蒂——在政治上都是极左。同样令人震惊的是,这四个哲学博士都得出结论,极度怀疑我们认识实在的能力。所以,我所提出的关于后现代主义的四个主题之一是,它发源于一种双重危机——一面是哲学领域中的知识危机,一面是左派政治领域中的社会主义危机。 DT: It seems to me that in its broadest sense postmodernism is as much a rhetorical device as it is a set of theories and political stances. For instance, Slavoj Žižek can dismiss aspects of postmodern theorising while employing much the same manoeuvres in his own writing. Much of what he says is clever in a rhetorical sense, in terms of manoeuvring around a dubious and unproven premise, while being enormously tendentious or simply glib. DT:在我看来,最广义而言,后现代主义既是一种修辞工具,也是一套理论和政治立场。比如,斯拉沃热·齐泽克能够在拒绝后现代理论若干方面的同时将同样的操控策略用于自己的写作中。从操控暧昧不明、未经验证的前提这个角度来看,他所说的很多东西从修辞上看非常聪明,但其内容的倾向性却非常明显或干脆就是耍嘴皮子。 If you don’t accept the premise - say, a tarted-up rehash of “false consciousness” or an antipathy towards capitalism - then what follows is unpersuasive, even absurd. Geoffrey Galt Harpham pointed out that Žižek’s essays often disregard conventional argumentative structures in favour of stylistic effects and bald assertion: 如果你不接受其前提——比如,对“虚假意识”的一种改头换面式的打扮或者对资本主义的反感——那么随之推演而来的就不具说服力,甚至荒谬至极。Geoffrey Galt Harpham曾指出,齐泽克的文章经常无视传统的论证结构,喜欢追求文体效果和不加解释地提出断言: “[E]ven the earnest reader who begins at page one has the constant impression of having opened to a page somewhere in the middle. This sense of an endless middle is achieved by reducing the conventional middle to almost zero. The typical Žižekian unit of discourse - a wittily-titled passage of between five and fifteen pages - begins abruptly with the kind of confident assertion commonly associated with the conclusion; there is no phase of doubt, no pretence of unprejudiced inquiry, only a series of demonstrations, exemplifications, and restatements.” “即便是最为真诚的读者,刚刚打开第一页,也总是会有一种印象,像是自己翻到了该书中部的某一页一样。制造出这种无休止的中部感的,是他将传统上的中部几乎压缩为零的做法。齐泽克一篇典型论文——5到15页的一段文字,题目机智巧妙——开头总是突兀地提出那种充满自信的断言,通常还跟结论混同在一起;没有怀疑的段落,绝不假装自己要做无偏见的探讨,只有一系列展示、举例和重申。” Bold yet unsupported claims are pretty much a signature of Žižek’s output -and of postmodernist writing more generally -and this is tolerated, indeed championed, by his more cultish admirers. What seems to matter is a “provocative” conclusion, at least of a certain kind, not how that conclusion was arrived at or whether it can be justified. 大胆而没有支撑的断言,几乎就是齐泽克作品的标志——也是更一般的后现代主义者作品的标志——而这得到了他那些狂热崇拜者的宽容、实际上是支持。对于他们来说,重要的是“令人振奋的”结论,至少是某种类别的此种结论,而不是如何得出这一结论或它是否可靠。 For instance, we’re told that fundamentalist Islam constitutes a “site of resistance” from which “one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society.” Yet “today’s society” - i.e. Western, liberal, capitalist society – is questioned openly, at length, and as a matter of routine - more so, I’d guess, than any other society in history. However, the societies envisioned by enthusiasts of fundamentalist Islam don’t seem likely to foster similar reflection or dissent; nor do they seem likely to equip their inhabitants with the tools of such endeavours. Yet these basic considerations don’t delay Žižek in his rush to assert. 比如,我们被告知,伊斯兰原教旨主义构成了一个“反抗地”,从此出发“人们可以对今日社会加以批判性的怀疑”。然而,“今日社会”——即西方,自由资本主义社会——经常公开地、详尽地、司空见惯地遭到质疑——程度超过历史上的任何社会,我想。可是,伊斯兰原教旨主义的狂热分子所设想的社会不太可能鼓励类似的反思或异议;他们也不太可能赋予其居民以从事这种事业的工具。但是,这些基本的考虑并不会耽误齐泽克匆忙提出其断言。 SH: Pomo is rhetoric-heavy, yes. But rhetoric is a tool, so one can ask how it’s being used and why it’s being used that way. The postmodernists have rejected reason, and along with it concern for evidence and consistency. What then is the purpose of rhetoric? In pomo practice, there are a couple of possibilities. SH:是的,后现代确实修辞繁复。但修辞是个工具,所以人们可以追问,它是被怎样使用使用的,以及为什么要这样使用。后现代主义者已经拒斥理性,连带着也拒斥了对于证据和一致性的关心。那么,修辞的目的是什么?在后现代实践中,有多种可能的回答。 One is that rhetoric becomes a kind of subjectivist expressionism - you play around with language and hope that something interesting pops out. Derrida is often like this - I think of him as a performance artist of postmodernism. In its darker moods, this approach recalls a line from Kate Ellis, a sympathetic-to-postmodernism commentator, who noted “the characteristically apolitical pessimism of most postmodernism, by which creation is simply a form of defecation.” Whatever’s been processing and churning up inside you - you just let ‘er rip. 一是修辞成为一种主观主义的表现主义——你摆弄语词,期待有啥有意思的东西自己跳出来。德里达经常就像是这样——我把他看作是一个后现代主义的行为艺术家。如果这种路径的基调更为阴郁一些,那就会让人想起Kate Ellis说过的一句话,Ellis是一个同情后现代主义的评论家,她提到过“绝大多数后现代主义中典型的非政治的悲观主义,这种悲观主义认为创作只不过是排泄的一种形式”。不管你体内正在处理、正在搅拌的都是些什么——你只管有屁快放。 The other use of rhetoric is politically-charged persuasion. Pomo rhetoric becomes long on emotionalism, ad hominem, and so on, and it becomes short on logic and evidence. But the point of such rhetoric is effectiveness, not truth. 修辞的另外一种用法是作为一种充满政治意味的劝服。后现代主义修辞富于感情主义、以情动人等等,同时缺乏逻辑和证据。但这类修辞的关键是有效性,而非真实性。 You mention that much pomo political rhetoric is anti-capitalist and champions unlikely causes such as fundamentalist Islam. Here the pomo are taking a page out of Lenin’s and Marcuse’s playbooks. There’s a long-ish story here that I talk about in Chapter 5 of Explaining Postmodernism: Traditional Marxism said that capitalism would collapse from the inside (the exploited and alienated workers would rise); but when that didn’t happen, Marxists theorized that capitalism had exported its misery to the Third World (Lenin’s idea) or to outcast and marginalized subcultures (Marcuse’s idea). So the new strategy was to cultivate the anti-capitalist resistance in those places. 你提到,众多后现代的政治言说都反对资本主义且支持如伊斯兰原教旨主义之类的无望事业。这是后现代在利用列宁和马尔库塞的一部分剧本。这里有个略微有点长的故事,我在《解释后现代主义》第五章曾谈及:传统的马克思主义提出,资本主义将会从内部瓦解(遭到剥削和异化的工人会站起来);但这事没有发生,于是马克思主义者就提出一个理论,认为资本主义已经将其不幸输出到了第三世界(列宁的观点)或者输出到了“被排斥者”和被边缘化的亚文化群体中(马尔库塞的观点)。所以,新的策略应是在这些地方培育反对资本主义的抵抗运动。 Like other pomo of this generation, Žižek is an evolving combination of the above. 跟这一代后现代的其他人一样,齐泽克是以上几种情形逐步发展出来的结合。 DT: You say, “The postmodernists have rejected reason, and along with it concern for evidence and consistency,” and I suspect some readers will find this hard to accept. It sounds outlandish. But, as you point out in the book, Lyotard explicitly rejected notions of truth and clarity as being synonymous with “prisons and prohibitions.” DT: 你提到,“后现代主义者已经拒斥理性,连带着也拒斥了对于证据和一致性的关心。”我怀疑有些读者可能觉得这种说法难以接受。听起来很稀奇。但是,正如你在书中指出的,利奥塔明确拒绝了真理和清晰这两个概念,认为它们与“监狱和禁令”是同义词。 Foucault shared these sentiments, claiming “reason is the ultimate language of madness,” suggesting that nothing should constrain our beliefs and political preferences, not even logic or evidence. Frank Lentricchia, another left-wing theorist, said the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” 福柯也持有这种观点,宣称“理性就是疯癫的终极语言”,认为我们的信念和政治倾向不应该受到任何东西的拘束,即便是逻辑或证据的拘束也不行。弗兰克·伦特恰瓦,又一个左翼理论家,曾说后现代运动“并不打算找出真理的基础和条件,而是要通过行使权力来致力于社会改造。” And Stanley Fish, who rushed to defend Social Text after the Sokal hoax, had previously argued that theorising and deconstruction “relieves me of the obligation to be right … and demands only that I be interesting.” There is a pattern here. 而在“索卡尔恶作剧”【译注:物理学家Alan Sokal曾瞎写一篇充满后现代味道但胡话连篇的论文,成功发表在著名文化研究杂志《社会文本》上,然后将实情公开。】之后匆忙跳出来为《社会文本》杂志辩解的斯坦利·费什,之前则曾争辩说,建立理论和进行解构“将我从保持正确的义务中解放出来……只要求我是有趣的。”这里确实存在一种普遍模式。 SH:It is hard to accept the rejection of reason, especially if you’re outside of academic circles, but it’s no secret inside. You nicely quote some representative statements - it’s also worth noting that the leading pomo thinkers cite Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Existentialists as their forerunners, and the rejection of reason runs deep in those lines of thought too. SH:说他们拒斥理性,这种判断很难接受,特别是如果你身在学术圈以外,但在学术圈内这不是什么秘密。你引用的这几个有代表性的陈述就很精到——同样值得注意的是,后现代思想家中的领军人物经常引尼采、海德格尔和存在主义者为其先驱,在这类思想脉络中,对理性的拒斥也是根深蒂固的。 DT: A while ago, I quoted a chunk of Derrida prose that’s hilarious nonsense. I’ve defied several Derrida enthusiasts to explain what this particular passage means, or might mean if you squint and tilt your head, but so far no-one has managed to tell me. DT:不久前,我曾引用过德里达的一段文章,那就是一段可笑的胡说八道。我拿着它去挑衅过几个德里达粉,让他们解释这段话的意思,或者如果你作眯眼翘首状,那在你的理解中它可能是什么意思,但迄今为止还没有一个人能回答我。 And the essay from which the quote is taken has numerous, equally baffling, paragraphs which could be arranged in almost any order with no perceptible difference. Much of the essay is wilfully incomprehensible, like some Dadaist prank that no-one dares to mention. 而且我引用的这段话所在的文章中到处可见诸如此类的令人困惑的段落,把它们按任何一个次序排列,你都不会看出有什么差别。文章的大部分是刻意写得难以理解,就像是某种达达主义的玩笑,没人敢于提及。 And there seems to be a taboo against even entertaining the possibility that such a thing could happen, and happen quite often, with little if any protest from colleagues and students. It’s unthinkable that such a con could be perpetrated, and maybe that’s why it goes on happening. 似乎还存在一种禁忌,连设想这种事情会发生并会频繁发生且几乎不会遭到同行和学生的抗议都不行。人们根本不会相信这种欺诈竟然能发生,这可能就是它得以发生的原因。 More recently, in a piece about the art world’s reliance on postmodernist rhetoric – what’s often called “art bollocks” - I pointed out that the artist Aliza Shvarts was mouthing opaque gibberish while pretending to be profound. The text she’d written and presented as a key part of her art was clumsy, incoherent and often simply meaningless. It was a kind of verbal flailing and rhetorical camouflage. (It’s difficult to determine exactly how wrong an unintelligible analysis is.) 最近,在一篇讨论艺术界对后现代主义修辞——经常被成为“艺术扯淡”——的依赖的文章中,我指出,艺术家Aliza Shvarts所夸夸其谈的,都是些晦涩的胡扯,她还装作很深刻。她所写的、作为其艺术的关键组成部分的那些文本词不达意、文理不通并且多数全无意义。那就是一种词汇抽搐和修辞伪装。(我们很难确定一则莫名其妙的分析到底有多少错误。) One postmodernist commenter took exception to my criticism - first by accusing me of arguing things I clearly wasn’t arguing, then by saying I was holding “entrenched positions” in which “aesthetic values” (in scare quotes), “scientific reality/clarity” (again, in scare quotes) and my own “reliance on logical consistency” (ditto) were obstacles to comprehension. Specifically, they were obstacles to comprehending Shvarts’ alleged (but oddly unspecified) “arguments of power, control [and] dominance.” The tone was, of course, condescending and self-satisfied. I’m guessing the commenter in question didn’t pause to consider the possibility that one might find pomo bafflegab objectionable precisely because it represents the “power, control [and] dominance” of what amounts to a priestly caste. 有个后现代主义评论家对我的批评提出异议——首先是指责我所争辩的是我明显并未在争辩的事情,接着说我持有“根深蒂固的立场”,且其中的“美学价值”(此处加讽刺引号)、“科学实在/清晰”(再加讽刺引号)及我自己对“逻辑一致性的依赖”(同上符号)都是理解能力的阻碍。特别是,它们阻碍了我理解Shvarts那些据称(但奇怪的是并没有具体指出来)“充满力量、控制及支配力的论证”。这一批评的语调自然是高人一等、自鸣得意。我猜我所说的这个评论家可能都不曾想过,人们之所以觉得后现代黑话难以接受,有可能就是因为它代表了一个相当于祭祀阶级的群体的“权力、控制和支配力”。 SH: A lot of what you’re getting from your various commentators seems like third-raters playing the game, so it’s probably not worth focusing on them - instead of attending to the lessons they’re learning from the leading pomo strategists. SH: 你从针对你的各种不同评论家那里获得的,就像是一群三流玩家在玩游戏,所以他们可能并不值得去关注——不如去注意他们都在学习的那些最重要的后现代战略家的教义。 Another clue is that some postmodernists prefer “neo-pragmatist.” Rorty, Fish, and many of the legal postmodernists sometimes use that label. Pragmatism as a school of thought thinks of knowledge, truth, and certainty as chimerical quests and suggests that we focus our efforts on what works. 另外一条线索是,某些后现代主义者喜爱“新实用主义”。罗蒂、费什和许多法律后现代主义者有时会使用这个标签。实用主义这一思想学派认为知识、真理和确定性都是虚假问题,建议我们把自己的努力集中到真正起作用的东西上来。 In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works. And so on. 因此,表现在政治形式上,后现代主义者的行为就像是典型的无良律师,一心想着打赢官司:真理和正义不是关键;相反,使用任何能够成功的修辞工具或策略才是关键。有时候,相互矛盾的论证方式管用。有时候你的听众渴望自己属于某个小团体,这可以加以利用。有时候要表现得绝对权威,这有助于掩饰一个案子的虚弱。有时候则是纡尊降贵管用。如此等等。 DT: I suppose, then, “neo-pragmatism” is often a euphemism for “bad faith,” or “rhetorical authoritarianism”? DT: 因此,我想,“新实用主义”通常就是“毫无诚信”或“修辞独断”的委婉语吗? SH: Not necessarily. Some neo-pragmatists take the milder position that truth is hard, our data always partial, and the world always evolving - and so rather than obsessing about truth we should be flexible and focus on working hypotheses and workable results. Susan Haack comes to mind here. That doesn’t have to be bad faith or authoritarianism. But other neo-pragmatists do push hard on the skepticism-about-truth button, as Rorty does, and that takes them into postmodernism. SH: 并不必然如此。某些新实用主义者采取更为温和的立场,认为真理很难,我们的资料总是不全,而且世界总在变化——所以我们不能执迷于真理,而应更加灵活,专注于可行的假说和可用的结果。这里,我想到的就是苏珊·哈克。这就不一定会是毫无诚信或独断主义。但其他新实用主义者,如罗蒂做的那样,确实会使劲地按住这个“对真理持怀疑主义”的按钮不放,而这就会令其陷入后现代主义。 DT: It’s interesting to contrast Explaining Postmodernism with some of the material you criticise. The writing is always clear, even when you’re dealing with quite detailed and knotty concepts or loaded obscurantism. I suppose some pomo theorists might consider your prose “unproblematic,” which is a pejorative, apparently. DT: 如果把《解释后现代主义》一书与你所批评的一些材料对比一下,就很有意思。你的写作总是清晰的,即便是在处理非常微妙且棘手的概念或者意味深长的玄虚隐晦时也是如此。我想,有些后现代理论家会认为你的文章“没有疑问”,而且显然用的是贬义。 Writing in Innovations of Antiquity, Ralph Hexter and Daniel Selden dismissed “transparent prose” as “the approved mode of expression for the society and values of the newly empowered middle class.” In the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Mas’ud Zavarzadeh denounced “unproblematic prose and clarity of presentation” as “the conceptual tools of conservatism.” 在《古代之创新》中,Ralph Hexter和Daniel Selden将“清晰的文章”拒斥为“得到社会以及刚刚获得权力的中产阶级的价值观批准的表达方式”。在《美学与艺术批评杂志》上,Mas’ud Zavarzadeh贬斥“没有疑问的文章和清晰的表述”,认为它们都是“保守主义的概念工具”。 The rejection of transparency as “conservative” is particularly odd, since transparency makes a claim amenable to broad critical enquiry, and thus public correction. Without transparency, what do we have? A private language shared only by likeminded peers, in which one is “free” to assert, largely unopposed? Is that really a marker of progress? 将清晰拒斥为“保守”,这一点特别怪异,因为清晰性使得一个断言能够经受广泛的批判性考察,因而能够得到公众的纠正。没有清晰性,我们还有什么?只有一种私人语言,由几个想法相近的同类来分享,人们可以“自由”断言,基本上说不会遭遇反驳?这真是进步的标志吗? In the essay linked above, Keith Windschuttle names various academics and educational advisors who claim that truth and reality are “authoritarian weapons” and that disinterested scholarship is merely “an ideological position” favoured by “traditionalists and the political right.” 在上面链接的文章中【译注:大概是指前面提到的Ralph Hexter和Daniel Selden的文章,标题是Truth and Tribalism,不过链接已失效】,Keith Windschuttle列举了许多学术界和教育顾问,他们声称真理和实在都是“专断工具”,而不偏不倚的学术研究则仅仅是“传统主义者和政治右派”所喜爱的“一种意识形态立场”。 This presents a rather handy excuse to dismiss political dissent without having to engage with inconvenient arguments. Presumably, if you prefer arguments that are comprehensible and open to scrutiny, this signals some reactionary tendency and deep moral failing. 这就给人提供了一个顺手的借口,无需通过麻烦的论证,就可以无视政治上的异议。他们假定,如果你偏爱那些能为人所理解、允许人审查的论证,这就标志着某种反动的倾向和深层的道德过失。 On the other hand, if you sneer at such bourgeois trifles, you’re radical, clever and very, very sexy. (Though I wonder what mathematicians and structural engineers would make of this claim. Is there such a thing as a rightwing calculation, or a rightwing bridge - I mean a bridge that’s rightwing because it doesn’t promptly collapse?) 另一方面,如果你会嘲弄这类资产阶级的细枝末节,那你就是激进的、聪明的,而且特别特别性感。(尽管我很想知道数学家和结构工程师会如何看待这一断言。是否存在一种叫做右翼计算的东西?或者是否存在右翼桥梁——我指的是那种因为不会立即倒塌而成其为右翼的桥梁?) SH: There’s that line from Nietzsche about obscurantists - they muddy the waters to make them appear deep. SH: 这里有尼采论故弄玄虚者的一句话——他们把水搅浑,以使自己看上去深沉。 But there is a deeper point about form following function, or in this case rhetorical style matching the content of one’s beliefs. The function of language is to express one’s thoughts. If you think truth is possible, then you work hard to understand the world clearly and completely. 但是,形式服从功能——或者在我们当前讨论的问题中即修辞风格对应个人信念内容——还有一层更深的意思。语言的功能就是表达人的思想。如果你认为真理是可能的,那你就会努力争取去清晰、完整地理解世界。 But if you doubt that truth is possible, that has psycho-epistemological consequences: you come to believe that the world is at best fuzzy and your mind incapable of grasping it - you come to believe deep down that all is fractured and disjointed - and your writing will tend to the fuzzy, the fractured, and the disjointed. And in consequence you will come to be suspicious of clarity in others. Clarity, from this perspective, must be an over-simplifying. 但如果你怀疑真理的可能性,那就会引发一些心理-认识论上的后果:你会开始相信,世界最多就是朦胧模糊的,而你的心智无力理解它——你内心深处会相信一切都是破碎的、脱节的——而你的写作就会倾向于模糊、破碎、脱节。结果就是你会开始怀疑他人写作的清晰性。在这种视角看来,清晰必然就是一种过分简化。 And there is a cheap rhetorical variant as well: if the data and the arguments, when presented clearly, are going against you, muddying the waters gives you some breathing room, so to speak. 当然,也存在一种粗劣的修辞形式:如果清晰表述的资料和论证都与你的观点相左,这时把水搅浑一些,可以说,就能给你留点可以呼吸的空间。 DT: How was the book received by defenders of the faith? Was there any serious attempt at refutation by those whose views you criticise? DT: 这种信仰的捍卫者们是如何看待你的书的?在其观点被你批评过的人中,是否有人真诚地尝试过反驳你? SH: It’s been well received and reviewed by realist liberals, conservatives, and libertarian intellectuals. From postmodernists, I have received only a few email denunciations. SH:在现实主义的自由派、保守派和自由意志论知识分子那里,我的书都得到了很好的反响和评论。至于后现代主义者,我只收到过几封谴责性的电邮。 DT: One of the recurrent themes here is the self-inflicted disrepute of large parts of academia. Whether it’s the spread of political lockstep and the consequent intolerance and extremism, or hucksterism and incompetence (and those who champion it), or student “activists” who regurgitate postmodernist clichés while enacting their dreary psychodramas. It seems to me that many of these things are related to the subject of your book. Whether viewed as a set of claims, as a political movement or as a rhetorical device, how would you describe the general fallout of postmodernism? DT:此处,一个反复出现的论题就是学术界很大一部分人自己给自己造成的声名狼藉。这既表现为政治上的因循守旧及随之而来的不宽容与极端主义,也包括自吹自擂与颟顸无能,还有拾人牙慧的学生“活动分子”,在出演那些做梦一样的心理剧时总是重复后现代主义的陈词滥调。在我看来,许多此类事情都跟你书中的主题有关。不管后现代主义被看做一套主张,还是一种政治运动,还是一种修辞工具,请问你会如何描述其一般后果? SH: In the shorter term, postmodernism has caused an impoverishment of much of the academic humanities, both in the quality of the work being done and the civility of the debates.The sciences have been less affected and are relatively healthy. The social sciences are mixed. SH: 短期来看,后现代主义已经导致了众多人文学科的贫乏,不管是说既有成果的质量,还是说学术讨论的礼节。自然科学受影响较小,相对来说更加健康。社会科学居中。 I am optimistic, though, for a couple of reasons. One is that pomo was able to entrench itself in the second half of the twentieth century in large part because first-rate intellectuals were mostly dismissive of it and focused on their own projects. But over the last ten years, after pomo’s excesses became blatant, there has been a vigorous counter-attack and pomo is now on the defensive. 不过,我还是个乐观主义者,理由有好几个。首先是,后现代之所以能在20世纪下半叶变得根深蒂固,很大一部分原因在于一流的知识分子大多不屑于理它,而是专注于他们自己的工作。但过去十年间,在后现代过分猖獗之后,已经出现了一轮强有力的反击,现在后现代已处于守势。 Another reason for optimism is that, as a species of skepticism, pomo is ultimately empty and becomes boring. Eventually intellectually-alert individuals get tired of the same old lines and move on. It is one thing, as the pomo can do well, to critique other theories and tear them down. But that merely clears the field for the next new and intriguing theory and for the next generation of energetic young intellectuals. 另一个保持乐观的原因是,作为怀疑主义的一个类别,后现代最终来说空洞无聊。最终来看,对于智识非常敏感的个体将会厌烦一模一样的陈旧言辞,就会另寻出路。批评其他理论并把他们推翻,这方面后现代可以做得很好,但这只是事情的一个方面。它做到的仅仅是清理了场面,留待下一个新的、有意思的理论出现,留待下一代充满活力的年轻知识分子。 So while the postmodernism has had its generation or two, I think we’re ready for the next new thing - a strong, fresh, and positive approach to the big issues, one that of course takes into account the critical weapons the pomo have used well over the last while. 所以,尽管后现代主义占据了一代或两代人,我想我们已为下一个新事物做好了准备——一种探讨宏大问题的强劲、新鲜、积极的路径,这种路径当然会将后现代在上一阶段中充分使用过的批判武器考虑在内。 It’s a big and interesting world out there. Let the best arguments prevail. 前面是一个无比广阔而有趣的天地。让最好的论证遍布其中吧。 Update: Over at The Augean Stables, Richard Landes has some interesting commentary on the above. Well worth reading. 更新:在The Augean Stables上,Richard Landes对上述内容提出了一些有趣评论,值得一读。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]列宁的幽灵

Lenin’s Ghost: How Did Marxist Professors Create a New Wave of Political Leaders?
列宁的幽灵:马克思主义学者是如何培养出新一拨政治领袖的?

作者:Mihail Neamtu @ 2016-1-12
译者:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
校对:慕白(@李凤阳他说)
来源:Law & Liberty,http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/01/22/lenins-ghost-how-did-marxist-professors-create-a-new-wave-of-political-leaders/

Europe has by no means recovered from its crisis. The new wave of migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has worsened the economic forecast. The economies of the Eurozone, with a collective growth rate of under 1.5 percent in 2015, are almost stagnant. Gone are the days of the German economic miracle. Nowadays, nearly 4.5 million young persons under 25 are unemployed in the EU-28 — a staggering figure, to which Chancellor Merkel just added an extra million refugees. Particularly in the Mediterranean countries, youth unemployment is at very high levels: 47.9 percent in Greece, 47.7 percent in Spain and 39.8 percent in Italy.

欧洲还远未从危机中恢复过来,来自非洲、亚洲和中东的新一波移民令经济预测更加悲观。欧元区的经济发展几近停滞,其2015年整体增长率不足1.5%。德国创造经济奇迹的时期早已远去,如今欧盟28国25岁以下年轻人的失业人数接近4500万,令人瞠目结舌,而德国总理默克尔还刚刚再往上面增加了100万难民。年轻人的失业率在地中海沿岸国家尤其居高不下:希腊为47.9%,西班牙为47.7%,意大利则为39.8%。

Confronted with this bleak picture, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, and public intellectuals all search for an explanation. Why is the European dream failing so many young people? How long will the economic recovery last? Will the EU be able to cope with another massive crash of the financial international system?

面对这般凄惨景况,政治家、记者、宗教领袖以及公共知识分子都在寻找个中原因。为什么欧洲梦会让如此多的年轻人无法企及?经济复苏还能维持多久?欧盟有没有能力应对另一次国际金融系统崩溃的巨大冲击?

While experts ponder s(more...)

标签: | | |
6858
Lenin’s Ghost: How Did Marxist Professors Create a New Wave of Political Leaders? 列宁的幽灵:马克思主义学者是如何培养出新一拨政治领袖的? 作者:Mihail Neamtu @ 2016-1-12 译者:小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 校对:慕白(@李凤阳他说) 来源:Law & Liberty,http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/01/22/lenins-ghost-how-did-marxist-professors-create-a-new-wave-of-political-leaders/ Europe has by no means recovered from its crisis. The new wave of migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East has worsened the economic forecast. The economies of the Eurozone, with a collective growth rate of under 1.5 percent in 2015, are almost stagnant. Gone are the days of the German economic miracle. Nowadays, nearly 4.5 million young persons under 25 are unemployed in the EU-28 — a staggering figure, to which Chancellor Merkel just added an extra million refugees. Particularly in the Mediterranean countries, youth unemployment is at very high levels: 47.9 percent in Greece, 47.7 percent in Spain and 39.8 percent in Italy. 欧洲还远未从危机中恢复过来,来自非洲、亚洲和中东的新一波移民令经济预测更加悲观。欧元区的经济发展几近停滞,其2015年整体增长率不足1.5%。德国创造经济奇迹的时期早已远去,如今欧盟28国25岁以下年轻人的失业人数接近4500万,令人瞠目结舌,而德国总理默克尔还刚刚再往上面增加了100万难民。年轻人的失业率在地中海沿岸国家尤其居高不下:希腊为47.9%,西班牙为47.7%,意大利则为39.8%。 Confronted with this bleak picture, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, and public intellectuals all search for an explanation. Why is the European dream failing so many young people? How long will the economic recovery last? Will the EU be able to cope with another massive crash of the financial international system? 面对这般凄惨景况,政治家、记者、宗教领袖以及公共知识分子都在寻找个中原因。为什么欧洲梦会让如此多的年轻人无法企及?经济复苏还能维持多久?欧盟有没有能力应对另一次国际金融系统崩溃的巨大冲击? While experts ponder such questions, legions of university students face the grim, day-to-day reality. Still in their thirties, they cannot leave their parents’ homes. It would be hard to find university graduates from Thessalonica or Malaga with bank savings or with enough funds to allow them to establish a family of their own. Many rely directly on social benefits, while switching from one low-paid job to another. In the public square, the notion of individual responsibility has become unfashionable. Angry crowds demonstrating in Athens, Madrid, or Bucharest call for ever new governmental solutions. 专家们在思考这些问题,而众多大学生则日复一复地面对残酷现实。他们已经三十多岁,但仍未能脱离父母独立生活。在萨洛尼卡和马拉加的大学毕业生当中,极少人有存款或其他财务来源足以让他们组建自己的家庭。他们当中很多人不停地辗转于不同的低薪工作,转工期间仅能依靠社会救济过活。“个人责任”的观念在社会上不再那么时髦了,雅典、马德里和布加勒斯特都有愤怒的群众游行示威,要求政府提供更新的解决方案。 In this atmosphere, both far Right parties and far Left political platforms have been mounting radical proposals. Populism is on the rise, in the form of nationalism, or revolutionary Marxism, or in some cases a strange mix of the two—as can be seen in the “Red-Brown-White” coalition that constitutes Vladimir Putin’s motley political base. Odd as it may seem, the two extremes can, as with the far-Left Syriza and the Independent Greeks (ANEL), a new Rightwing party, march together shoulder to shoulder. 在这种氛围下,无论极右政党还是极左政治联盟都不停地提出激进的建议。民粹主义正在升温,表现形式有民族主义,有宣扬革命的马克思主义,也有两者的奇特组合——例如普京混杂政权基础中的“红-棕-白”政治联盟【译注:在俄罗斯的政治语境中,红色代表社会主义和共产主义,棕色代表极端民族主义,白色代表君主政体】。虽然看起来很古怪,但是位处两个对立极端的势力(正如希腊的激进左翼联盟(Syriza)和新右翼政党独立希腊人(ANEL)那样)却可以并肩前行。 The present essay will examine the Left side of the ledger to see what intellectual and cultural forces account for the resurgence of Left radicalism in various European countries. My claim is that old-school Marxists in Western academia have managed to produce a new class of revolutionary politicians, who are currently challenging the foundations of the Western capitalist order. 本文将研究政治光谱中的左翼,以寻找极左激进思潮在欧洲各国重新抬头背后的思想与文化推力。我的看法是,西方学术界中老派的马克思主义者已经培养出了新一批的革命政客,而这些政客正在对西方资本主义秩序的根基提出挑战。 We have, for example, the British Labor Party’s new leader Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-NATO politician and welfare devotee. He has called for a friendlier approach to Putin’s Russia. (In accord with the above-noted trend, this puts him in line with Rightwing populists in his country, of the UKIP Party, and Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France.) 例如,英国工党的新党魁科尔宾就是一个反北约的政客,也是福利主义的狂热信徒。他还呼吁以友善的态度对待普京治下的俄罗斯(在前文所述的趋势之下,科尔宾凭着他的这一主张,与英国独立党的右翼民粹主义者,以及法国民族阵线的马琳•勒庞,成为同道中人)。 In Spain, there has emerged Podemos, a Leftwing movement that ran candidates for the general elections under the motto Libertad, igualdad, y fraternidad, and that late last year won 20.65 percent of the national vote, vaulting to the position of third largest political organization in the country.A 37-year-old political science professor named Pablo Manuel Iglesias Turrión is the leader of Podemos, which means “We Can”—an echo of Barack Obama’s “Yes, We Can.” 而西班牙则冒出了一个叫“我们可以”的左翼团体,他们派出代表以“自由、平等、博爱”的口号参加大选,并在去年年底赢得全国20.65%的选票,一跃成为全国第三大政治组织。“我们可以”的领袖,是一个名叫伊格莱西亚斯的37岁政治学教授。“我们可以”这个名字,呼应了奥巴马的竞选口号“是的,我们可以”。 Iglesias, an admirer of the Bolshevik Revolution, was a member of the Spanish Communist Party until 1999. In 2014, Comrade Iglesias was elected to the European Parliament as a member of his new party. Its growth in the last election came after it gathered in representatives of Izquierda Anticapitalista, an organization that includes some Trotskyites and Gramscians. (Sample press release from that group: “Toward a Democratic Disruption and an End to Austerity”). 伊格莱西亚斯对布尔什维克革命心怀敬佩,他自己在1999年之前也是西班牙共产党员。2014年,伊格莱西亚斯同志以其新政党【译注:即“我们可以”】成员的身份,成为欧洲议会的议员。在去年的大选中冒升之前,“我们可以”吸收了政治组织“左翼反资本主义”的代表,而该组织网罗的是一些托派和葛兰西学派的人。(该组织对外发表的范文之一:“迈向民主之崩溃与紧缩政策之终结”。) Podemos takes pride in presenting youthful faces to the Spanish electorate, and advocates of liberation theology (in the person of Teresa Forcades, “the radical Catalan nun on a mission,” as London’s Guardian newspaper called her). In the land of Don Quixote, Pope Francis’ sympathy for the Bolivarian economic model did make a lasting impression. “我们可以”让年轻人更多地参与政治,让他们成为解放神学倡导者(例如被伦敦《卫报》称之为“肩负使命的加泰罗尼亚激进修女”的特蕾莎•福加德斯),并以此为傲。在这片诞生了堂吉诃德的土地上,教宗方济各对玻利维亚经济模式的同情的确令人经久不忘。 In fact among former leaders of Podemos, one counts Juan Carlos Monedero, an advisor to the late Hugo Chávez. Incidentally, Hugo Chávez and his successor in Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, have sponsored Spain’s Leftwing parties and associations in the same explicit manner that President Putin has channeled Russian rubles toward his political puppets from Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. 实际上,“我们可以”的前领袖之一胡安•卡洛斯•莫内德罗就在委内瑞拉总统查韦斯执政后期担任其顾问。顺便说一句,查韦斯和他的继任人尼古拉斯•马杜罗都毫不掩饰地为西班牙左翼的政党和组织提供资助,与普京总统向他在乌克兰、摩尔多瓦和格鲁吉亚的傀儡政权输送卢布同出一辙。 The European Left, in short, is very much alive and kicking. From Britain, Greece, and Spain to the Die Linke party in Germany, the heirs of Marx show a remarkable efflorescence, resembling the Greek mythological Hydra endowed with multiple serpentine heads, despite its one and only reptilian body. We may ask ourselves who the future Heracles will be, slaying the beast with the humor of Winston Churchill and the manly determination of Mrs. Thatcher… 简而言之,欧洲的左翼势力仍生机勃勃。从英国、希腊、西班牙,到德国的左翼党,马克思的继承人向世人展现了他们的欣欣向荣,一如希腊神话中的九头蛇,尽管只有一副羸弱的身躯,却生出许多个蛇头。我们也许可以问问自己,谁将成为未来的赫拉克勒斯,以丘吉尔的幽默和撒切尔夫人的铁腕,手刃这头怪兽。 Why are the ghosts of Marxism haunting the political life of Europe? Mainly because neither the structural evils of communist ideology nor its perpetrators in the former Soviet bloc have  experienced a proper Nurnberg-style scrutiny. After the Second World War, the dismantling of the Nazi network in Germany created the proper context for the carrying out of the Marshall Plan. 为何马克思主义在欧洲政坛阴魂不散?这主要是因为,无论是共产主义意识形态在体制上的恶性,还是前苏维埃统治集团中的恶徒,都没有经历过一场纽伦堡审判式的彻底清算。二战之后,纳粹主义机体在德国土崩瓦解,为实行马歇尔计划提供了适当条件。 After 1989, the EU’s expansion toward former Socialist republics did not require a similar political lustration. To this day, most of the societal and economic disasters produced by the communist experiment remain largely unknown to the general public from the Western European countries, particularly those not yet born at the time of the 1989 revolutions or who were young at the time 1989年之后,欧盟向前社会主义国家扩张,却并没有要求在政治体制上进行类似的清理。时至今日,共产主义实验在社会制度和经济上所造成的重大灾难,大多仍不为西欧普通民众所知,尤其是那些在1989年还没出生——或当时还很年轻——的民众。 It was widely expected that these revolutions would put Leftist academics, or at least most of them, out of business. Their voices were certainly muted for a time, but that time has expired. Rejecting the notion of public penance, old Marxist professors have resumed their project, and carried on with their negation of historical facts. By spinning their simplistic understanding of the relationship between labor and capital, Marxist ideologues in the North-Atlantic hemisphere have hatched a new generation—one that seeks, and in many cases finds, electoral validation. 人们曾普遍预期,在经历了那些革命之后,就算不是全部,起码绝大部分的左翼学者不会再有市场。他们的确销声匿迹了一段时间,然而这段时间已经过去了。那些老派马克思主义学者又开始重操旧业,他们仍然拒绝接受公开忏悔的理念,继续否定历史事实。基于对劳动力与资本两者间关系的粗浅理解,北大西洋区的马克思主义追随者们牵强附会地虚构编造,孵化出了新一代——他们寻求通过参选得到承认,有好些已经获得成功。 Just as the young Barack Obama absorbed Frank Marshall Davis’ worldview in the 1970s, so too have European elites imbibed the vapors of the Maoist philosopher Alain Badiou in Paris, the late historian Eric Hobsbawm in London, cultural critic Slavoj Žižek in Ljubljana, or the Hungarian writer G.M. Tamás in Budapest. Such Marxist professors are responsible, indeed, for the birth of a new generation of historically ignorant opinion-makers in Europe. 和巴拉克•奥巴马年轻时吸收了1970年代弗兰克•马歇尔•戴维斯的世界观一样,欧洲精英阶层也受到了马克思主义学者影响,当中有巴黎的毛主义哲学家阿兰•巴迪欧,伦敦的当代历史学家艾瑞克•霍布斯鮑姆,卢布尔雅那的文化评论家斯拉沃热•齐泽克,以及布达佩斯的匈牙利作家贾斯伯•米克罗斯•塔马斯。欧洲出现了对历史愚昧无知的新一代意见领袖,这些马克思主义学者对此难辞其咎。 The economic crisis of late 2008 proved to be a good moment for high-brow academics and social justice street activists. They came together with the dream of rekindling the May 1968 movement against the bourgeois, middle-class establishment in France. Alienated youth flooded social media with Marxist jingles about American imperialism, the existence of banks and mortgages, the privatization of state assets, and the hierarchical structures of traditional family (depicted as sexist and homophobic). 2008年末爆发的经济危机,成了撮合高高在上的学术界和追求社会公义的街头行动家的大好时机。他们梦想着重燃法国1968年5月反资产阶级风暴之火,走到了一起。离群索居的年轻人在社交媒体大肆张贴马克思主义的宣传短曲,攻击美帝国主义,反对银行与抵押贷款、国有资产私有化以及传统家庭等级制度(认为这是性别歧视和恐同的表现)。 Day and night during—and since—the Great Recession, on television and radio programs, at public rallies, and throughout academic colloquia, utopians recycle the mantras of “equality,” “identity politics,” “prejudice,” and “discrimination.” At times, the fresh young European Marxists may speak more eloquently than the worn-out Bernie Sanders does in the Democratic Party’s primaries. However, this lyrical exaltation of Marxism brings nothing new in terms of understanding economic cycles or the way out of poverty. 自2008年经济大衰退开始,不切实际的空想家们无论在电视和电台节目、公众集会,还是学术界的研讨会上,都日以继夜地把“平等”“身份政治”“偏见”和“ 歧视”等概念像咒语一样翻来覆去地念诵。有时候,年轻的欧洲马克思主义者说起话来,比疲惫的桑德斯在民主党党内初选的演说还要滔滔不绝。然而,无论听起来多么激动人心,马克思主义仍然不能为研究经济规律和摆脱贫穷带来任何新东西。 Podemos and Syriza won their respective elections by vaguely promising the voters another future—a distant reality in which decisions about individual happiness would be made through a Rousseau-styled “collective deliberation.” How would poverty be eliminated? Through cooperatives, we are told, which would be less profit-driven than the “neoliberal enterprises” but which would benefit from a state-controlled redistribution of wealth. “我们可以”和激进左翼联盟通过含糊其辞地承诺选民“另一个”未来,赢得了西班牙和希腊的大选。而在这个遥远的未来中,有关个人幸福的问题则需要通过卢梭式的“集体研究”来决定。该怎样消灭贫穷呢?据说可以通过合作社,因为合作社不像“新自由主义企业”那样唯利是图,还可以从国家控制下的财富再分配中获益。 The call to ideological warfare from Podemos (be it in the form of political correctness, student strikes, militias on campuses, or voluntary sit-ins) flirts with the image of a cosmic deliverance from the “hegemonic powers” of capitalism. The relationship between the individual and the crowd is construed erotically. Comrade Iglesias’ speeches set the stage for a quasi-spiritual, if not mystical, interpretation of the revolutionary endeavor. “我们可以”所宣扬的意识形态斗争(无论是以讲求政治正确、学生罢课、校园民兵组织,还是自愿静坐的形式)引发了全球摆脱资本主义霸权这一遐想。个人与集体的关系被描绘得很诱人。伊格莱西亚斯同志的演讲令人容易对革命行动产生类似宗教般的,甚至神秘的理解。 The Leftist revolutionaries accuse “the agents of laissez-faire capitalism” of having created a new class of underpaid employees. They depict students, workers, and trade unionists as innocent victims of a vast conspiracy set up by the owners of multinational companies. In response to the selfish individualism of the Right, the new Marxists celebrate the collectivist frenzy of anti-bourgeois demonstrators. By singing the litany of “fairness,” they forget the importance of moral virtue, human character, and individual responsibility. They avoid addressing the psychological dimension of behavioral traits such as laziness, low-esteem, or procrastination. 左翼革命家们谴责“自由放任的资本主义代理人”制造了新的受剥削阶层,他们认为跨国公司股东之间互相勾结,而学生、工人、工会会员则是这一巨大阴谋的无辜受害者。针对右翼利己的个人主义,新马克思主义者为反资产阶级示威者的集体主义狂热唱赞歌。在喋喋不休地歌颂“公正”的时候,他们忘却了道德伦理、人类本性与个人责任的重要性,而且对诸如懒惰、缺乏自尊和拖延等行为特征的心理因素避而不谈。 Professor Claude Karnoouh (who taught Marxist sociology at a prominent university in the central Romanian region of Transylvania) argues that free markets produce social disasters by destroying neighborhoods and towns. He nowhere takes into account the creative nature of capitalist disruptions, so powerfully defended by Joseph Schumpeter and strikingly visible in the recent replacement of old postal offices by email (or in the mass-production of electronic tablets and the rapid decline of desktop computers). 在位于罗马尼亚中部特兰西瓦尼亚地区某知名大学教授马克思主义社会学的克劳德•卡努教授认为,自由市场摧毁了社区和小城镇,制造了社会灾难。但他完全没有考虑到资本主义式破坏的创造性本质,而这一点已经得到了约瑟夫•熊彼特强有力的论证,并且在近年来电子邮件取代传统邮局(或者平板电脑盛行和桌面电脑式微)的范例中得到清晰的体现。 The Marxist revolutionaries of 21st century Europe ignore the subtle contrivances of human motivation and organizational behavior, which typically make people leave behind the poor conditions of their ancestors, acquire new skills, and transcend the national barriers in search for a better life. 那些针对人类动机和组织行为的微妙设置,能够驱使人们挣脱先辈的困境,学习新的技能,超越国家壁垒,以求改善生活,而二十一世纪欧洲的马克思主义革命家忽略了这一点。 Also based on false assumptions is Podemos’ rhetoric against corruption. It underestimates the welfare state’s role in diminishing individual freedom and economic opportunity for young Spaniards and young people everywhere. In search of the heroic proletariat, Professor Iglesias is still obsessed with the class struggle and the victory of workers through larger trade unions and more frequent strikes. He ignores that every individual is paid for the skills, and for the needs, that he or she brings to the marketplace. “我们可以”针对贪污腐败的激烈言辞,也建基于错误假设之上,他们低估了福利制度对西班牙乃至世界各地的年轻人的个体自由和经济发展的抑制作用。怀着对英雄无产阶级的向往,伊格莱西亚斯教授仍然沉迷于阶级斗争,渴望工人阶级通过更大规模的工会和更频繁的示威来获得胜利。每个人的薪水都是由其在市场上展现出来的技能和对这种技能的需求决定的,但他完全无视这一点。 The leaders of Podemos and Syriza are blind to the differences between an Anglo American approach to economic competition (as a cure to favoritism) and a South American (but of course not uniquely South American) support for state monopoly. Rampant corruption stems not only from the ills of human nature (“the greed of the Wall Street party,” as Iglesias puts it). Corruption is the result of poor institutional arrangements: volatile property rights, overregulation, laws preventing the free association of individuals, rigged contracts pushed by central governments, as well as high taxes for small businesses. It is corruption that kills the natural instinct for entrepreneurship, individual freedom, personal growth, and economic development. 英语美洲鼓励经济竞争(以避免偏袒徇私),南美洲(当然也不仅限于南美洲)支持国家垄断,但“我们可以”和激进左翼联盟的领袖对两者间的差异却视而不见。猖獗的贪污腐败行为不仅仅源于人性中之恶(伊格莱西亚斯谓之为“华尔街派对中的贪婪”),也源于糟糕的制度安排:产权缺乏保障、过度监管、法律限制自由结社、中央政府非法操纵合同,以及对小企业高额征税。正是贪污腐败扼杀了与生俱来的创业精神、个体自由、个人成长与经济发展。 Speaking of poverty and wealth, the Jacobins haven’t managed to create a single socialist success story. No one in contemporary Cuba, Laos, or North Korea goes to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, and criticize after dinner.” Except for the privileged nomenklatura and the party apparatchiks, ordinary people from socialist countries have never experienced the coexistence of these leisurely activities. 说到贫穷与财富,雅各宾派并没能创造出社会主义的成功案例,一个都没有。在当代的古巴、老挝或者朝鲜,都没有人能够“上午打猎,下午捕鱼,晚上喂牛,晚饭后搞批判”【编注:语出马克思《德意志意识形态》(1845)第9页】。除了拥有特权的某些阶层和党员,社会主义国家的平民百姓从未过上这种悠闲生活。 Why should we believe that Syriza or Podemos will unchain millions of unemployed people through the shameless rescue of Lenin? In recent times, countries run by radical socialist governments have made no significant contribution to the flourishing of scientific research or to the groundbreaking technological innovations which have spread across the world. 我们为什么要相信,“我们可以”和激进左翼联盟搬出列宁的那一套,就能解救数以百万计的失业人口呢?在近代社会,科学研究百花齐放,科技创新突破惠及全球,但激进社会主义政权领导的国家从未对此做出过任何重大贡献。 Neither Communist China nor authoritarian Russia can boast impressive advances in the field of medical science. Such achievements still crown the healthcare systems of the free world. From its very first political application in real time and real history, Marxist ideology has been a painful failure of astonishing proportions. 无论是共产主义中国,还是威权主义俄国,都没能在医学研究领域取得引以为豪的突破进展。那些令人瞩目的成就,仍然出自自由国度的医疗系统。从其历史上第一次付诸政治实践开始,马克思主义意识形态带来的从来都是极其惨痛的失败。 What about the scientific claims made by Karl Marx (1818–1883)? As Dr. Paul Aligică from George Mason University once put it, Marxist economists currently employ epistemic tools that resemble the phlogiston theory used by the 17th century physicists. Das Kapital can explain the wealth and the poverty of nations with the same measure of clarity that Johann Joachim Becher’s (1635–1682) alchemist views of combustion help us understand a Ferrari engine. 那么马克思在科学方面的论断又是否有过什么贡献呢?正如乔治梅森大学的保罗•阿里吉卡博士曾经说的那样,马克思主义经济学家如今使用的认知工具,类似于17世纪物理学家使用的燃素理论。用《资本论》来解释国家的财富和贫穷,和以约翰•约钦姆•贝歇尔(1635-1682年)炼金术的燃烧理论来研究法拉利引擎,效度不相伯仲。 A century and half since the Communist Manifesto was published, the entire scientific scaffolding of Marxism has fallen to pieces. Marx got it all wrong when he spoke about the future developments of the Western society. As a reductionist theory, Marxism today cannot account for the economic transformation of the West. 自《共产党宣言》发表一个半世纪以来,马克思主义的整个科学理论框架已经分崩离析,支离破碎。马克思对西方社会的未来展望,无一应验。作为一种还原主义理论,如今马克思主义完全无法解释西方国家的经济转型。 Let us compare the income and lifestyle of a 19th century worker from a steel factory in Manchester, England with the monthly salary and the spare time enjoyed by a Google employee at the dawn of the third millennium. Would a ship worker from Gdansk in the early 1980s have dreamt of possessing a satellite home television or a mobile phone in his pocket? What is, then, left of all Marxist “prophecies”? 我们不妨将19世纪英国曼彻斯特钢铁厂工人的月薪和生活方式,和21世纪初谷歌员工的月薪与闲暇时间进行对比。1980年代初格但斯克的船坞工人能想象家里装上卫星电视,兜里揣着手机吗?那马克思主义的“预言”还剩下些什么? Since Marxist doctrine has no scientific grounding, it would seem to follow that its popularity ought to be examined from the perspective of rhetoric, theology, or literary studies. Decades ago, Robert C. Tucker convincingly argued that myth is a central category in the writings of the young Marx. 马克思主义学说没有科学基础,因此要分析它为何盛行,似乎应该从修辞艺术、宗教信仰和文学研究角度入手。数十年前,罗伯特•塔克就已经很有力地论述过,神话是马克思年轻时写作的中心主题。 From time immemorial, people cherished the eschatological promise of a savior (rebranded by Marx as “the proletariat” and by Stalin under the name of “the Party leader”). Since Marxism is neither a serious economic theory nor a rigorous social science, we would understand it better as the secular religion of modernity, which uses a redemptive language for the alienated masses. 自古以来,人们就对承诺拯救万民于水火的救世主心怀向往(马克思将其包装为“无产阶级”,而斯大林则称其为“党的领袖”)。鉴于马克思主义既不是严肃的经济理论,也不是严谨的社会科学,因此要更好地理解这一理论,我们应该将其视作追求现代性的世俗宗教,它运用救赎的语言来面对异化了的普罗大众。 Alain Besançon identified the presence of Gnostic themes in the Marxist narrative of class warfare, while the University of Chicago’s Mircea Eliade has shown the extent to which the historicist myth of a classless society projects the image of a Golden Age into modern times. 阿兰•贝桑松指出,马克思主义对于阶级斗争的叙述中包含了诺斯替派的主张,而芝加哥大学的米尔恰•伊利亚德则指出,消除社会阶级乃历史必然这一迷思,其实很大程度上只是一厢情愿地将希腊的黄金时代投射到现代社会之中。 Traditional societies had foundational stories about charismatic, heroic individuals who fought against an evil enemy and promised a radical, not an incremental, improvement of the human condition. Marxists revolutionaries have taken up this apocalyptic imagery. The new small “c” catholic church is the international socialist movement, which brings to the afflicted world a message of a redeemed humanity. 传统社会总流传着一些英雄故事,这些英雄魅力非凡,勇于对抗恶势力,他们许诺的不是渐进的改良,而是一夜之间改善人们的生活现状。马克思主义革命家宣扬的就是这种末日天启般的景象。这一新的全人类的教会就是国际社会主义运动,他们宣称,要为这个受尽磨难的世界带来人性救赎的福音。 Prime Minister Tsipras (known as the Greek “Che Guevara”) said that “the communist regime . . . at least had humanity at the center of their thinking.” Young and radical politicians such as he do not feel the need to explain the criminal deeds of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. 被称为“希腊的切•格瓦拉”的希腊总理齐普拉斯说,“共产主义政权……起码以人道主义作为核心考量。”像他那样年轻激进的政客们,似乎从不觉得有必要解释1917年布尔什维克革命所犯下的罪行。 Instead of looking at the horrors of the Gulag, the leaders of Syriza and Podemos offer their audience the same toxic and yet mesmerizing incantations that make people forget about the Ukrainian Holodomor or about the Stalinist labor camps of Perm, Volga Canal, and Pitești (the latter experiment being described by Vladimir Tismăneanu in his 2014 book on The Devil in History). 激进左翼联盟和“我们可以”的领袖们也无视古拉格的丑陋和残酷,他们拿催眠咒语来荼毒信众,让他们忘记乌克兰大饥荒,忘记设在彼尔姆、伏尔加运河与皮特什蒂的斯大林式劳改营(弗拉迪米尔•蒂斯马尼努在他2014年出版的《历史中的魔鬼》中对皮特什蒂的实验项目也有所描述)。 When a freely elected leader of a European nation can say that “humanity” was “at the center” of the communist experiment, we must pause and ask ourselves: How can Europe regain the vast amount of moral clarity it has lost since the 1989-1991 period? Will perhaps the foe of the former evil empire make a Reaganite comeback to help Europe find its way? Might we believe that a future President of the United States will call out the new Jacobins? May we hope that future leaders of democratic parties will stop indulging in a shameless nostalgia for Marx and Lenin? 连一个欧洲国家自由选举产生的领导人,都能说出“人道主义”处于共产主义实践的“核心位置”这样的话来,我们必须停下来问问自己:欧洲如何能重新厘清自1989-1991年巨变以来就已经变得模糊的道德观念?过往邪恶帝国的敌人会不会以一个里根式的王者归来,帮助欧洲重回正轨?我们会不会相信美国未来的总统会请新雅各宾派重出江湖?我们可不可以希望未来民主政党的领导人不要再不知廉耻地缅怀马克思和列宁? It is a matter of historical record that, like the victims of the Shoah, the prisoners of communism underwent unimaginable physical degradation and psychological torture. Who will educate the Prime Minister of Greece and tell him of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s long-lasting witness? Who will enlighten Pablo Iglesias Turrión about the black mass which, in the name of humanity, the KGB proxies organized at Pitești Prison during the late 1950s? Students of theology living under communism were forced to denounce God, to mock Christ, and to blaspheme the name of the Virgin Mary under the burden of extreme beatings and despicable sufferings. 就如同电影《浩劫》中的受害人那样,共产主义的囚徒经受了无法想象的身体摧残和心理折磨,这是铁一般的历史事实。难道没有人教育一下希腊总理,告诉他索尔仁尼琴长期以来所目睹的那些惨况?难道没有人告诉伊格莱西亚斯,1950年代末克格勃特工以人道主义的名义在皮特什蒂监狱组织的黑色弥撒是什么?生活在共产主义国家的神学学生,在酷刑的胁迫之下,要被迫批判上帝,嘲笑耶稣基督,亵渎中伤圣母玛利亚。 Such was the “love” for “humanity” that millions of people witnessed during the 20th century. Such are the untruths that vote-seeking, parliament-leading Marxist revolutionaries want to pour into the minds of ordinary men and women, who may begin their adult life by searching for a better job, but might end their pursuit of happiness by embracing an obsolete and evil ideology. 这些就是数以百万计的民众在20世纪所亲眼目睹的“人道主义”之“爱”,这些也是唯选票是图的马克思主义革命家们想对普通民众灌输的颠倒黑白的谎言。人们原本不过是想在成年后找一份好点的工作,但却可能只因向一种过时而邪恶的意识形态张开怀抱,而令追求幸福的梦想彻底破灭。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]社会心理学界政治单极化

It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
终于来啦:关于社会心理学缺乏政治多元性的大型综述论文

作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2015-9-14
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:龟海海
来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

Heterodox Academy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists and a sociologist to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative.)  In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site.

“异端学院”发端于五位社会心理学家和一位社会学家对心理学领域早被注意到的一个问题的合作研究:该领域中几乎所有人都是政治上的左派。自2011年始,我们就一直在共同写作一篇论文,解释这一现象是如何产生的、它如何降低了社会心理学领域所发表的科学文章的质量,以及为改进这一科学可以做些什么。(注意我们之中没人自认为是保守派)在此过程中,我们发现了其他一些学者在其它领域的研究成果,他们加入了我们的队伍,一起创建了这个网站。

Our paper is finally published this week! A preprint of the manuscript was posted last year, but now we have the final typeset version, plus the 33 commentaries. Here is a link to the PDF of the final manuscript, on the website of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (Thanks to Paul Bloom for his wise and patient editorship.) Here’s a link to a page linking to HTML versions of all the documents. But because our article is long (13 dense pages) and the 33 commentaries are longer (another 31 pages) — and then there’s our response (another 7 pages) — we recognize that few people will ever read the whole package.

我们的论文终于在本周出版啦!我们去年曾贴出原稿的预印本,但现在我们已经有了排版稿,外加33条评论。以下是《行为与脑科学》杂志网站上最终稿的PDF版链接(感谢Paul Bloom明确且细致的编辑工作。)以下则是所有文档的HTML版的网页链接。不过,由于我们的文章很长(密密麻麻13页),那33条评论更长(加31页)——还有我们的回应(再加7页)——我们认为没什么人会读完全部材料。

For all these reasons, we offer here a “CliffsNotes” version, giving the basics of our argument using excerpts copied directly from the paper.  [Occasional comments from me–Jonathan Haidt–are interspersed in brackets] Please also see this post by Lee Jussim, explaining why we think this problem is so serious. In a later post Jarret Crawford summarizes the 33 commentaries on our article.

出于以上理由,我们现在提供一份“克里夫笔记”【导读荟萃】版,通过对论文的直接复制摘录,给出我们的论证要点。[间或在括号中加入了由我(Jonathan Haidt)写的评论]。此外,还请阅读Lee Jussim发布的这个帖子,他解释了我们为何认为这个问题很严重。在之后的一片帖子中,Jarret Crawford总结了33条关于我们文章的评论。

CITATION: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[and try this link, with no paywall, or this link to the preprint version]

引用:Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). 政治多样性将会改善社会心理科学。《行为和脑科学》, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[另外,试试这个链接,没有付费墙,或者这个预印本]

ABSTRACT
摘要

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity.

心理学家已向我们展示,多元性——特别是视角的多元性——对于提高创造力、促进新发现和解决问题的价值。但是,一般而言在学院心理学以及特别而言在社会心理学领域,却缺乏一种关键形式的视角多元性:政治多元性。

This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years.

本文考察了可见的证据,并为下列四个论断提供了支撑:(1)学院心理学过去曾有过相当大的政治多元性,但在过去50年间几乎已将其丧失殆尽。

(2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike.

(2)这种政治多元性的缺乏,可能破坏社会心理科学的有效性,破坏可能通过这样一些机制发生:将自由派价值观预置于研究问题和方法中,引导研究者避开事关重大但在政治上不受待见的研究课题,并得出对自由派抑或保守派特征的错误描绘。

(3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological (more...)

标签: | |
6702
It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology 终于来啦:关于社会心理学缺乏政治多元性的大型综述论文 作者:Jonathan Haidt @ 2015-9-14 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:龟海海 来源:Heterodox Academy,http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/ Heterodox Academy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists and a sociologist to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative.)  In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site. “异端学院”发端于五位社会心理学家和一位社会学家对心理学领域早被注意到的一个问题的合作研究:该领域中几乎所有人都是政治上的左派。自2011年始,我们就一直在共同写作一篇论文,解释这一现象是如何产生的、它如何降低了社会心理学领域所发表的科学文章的质量,以及为改进这一科学可以做些什么。(注意我们之中没人自认为是保守派)在此过程中,我们发现了其他一些学者在其它领域的研究成果,他们加入了我们的队伍,一起创建了这个网站。 Our paper is finally published this week! A preprint of the manuscript was posted last year, but now we have the final typeset version, plus the 33 commentaries. Here is a link to the PDF of the final manuscript, on the website of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. (Thanks to Paul Bloom for his wise and patient editorship.) Here’s a link to a page linking to HTML versions of all the documents. But because our article is long (13 dense pages) and the 33 commentaries are longer (another 31 pages) — and then there’s our response (another 7 pages) — we recognize that few people will ever read the whole package. 我们的论文终于在本周出版啦!我们去年曾贴出原稿的预印本,但现在我们已经有了排版稿,外加33条评论。以下是《行为与脑科学》杂志网站上最终稿的PDF版链接(感谢Paul Bloom明确且细致的编辑工作。)以下则是所有文档的HTML版的网页链接。不过,由于我们的文章很长(密密麻麻13页),那33条评论更长(加31页)——还有我们的回应(再加7页)——我们认为没什么人会读完全部材料。 For all these reasons, we offer here a “CliffsNotes” version, giving the basics of our argument using excerpts copied directly from the paper.  [Occasional comments from me–Jonathan Haidt–are interspersed in brackets] Please also see this post by Lee Jussim, explaining why we think this problem is so serious. In a later post Jarret Crawford summarizes the 33 commentaries on our article. 出于以上理由,我们现在提供一份“克里夫笔记”【导读荟萃】版,通过对论文的直接复制摘录,给出我们的论证要点。[间或在括号中加入了由我(Jonathan Haidt)写的评论]。此外,还请阅读Lee Jussim发布的这个帖子,他解释了我们为何认为这个问题很严重。在之后的一片帖子中,Jarret Crawford总结了33条关于我们文章的评论。 CITATION: Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[and try this link, with no paywall, or this link to the preprint version] 引用:Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). 政治多样性将会改善社会心理科学。《行为和脑科学》, 38, 1-13.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430[另外,试试这个链接,没有付费墙,或者这个预印本] ABSTRACT 摘要 Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. 心理学家已向我们展示,多元性——特别是视角的多元性——对于提高创造力、促进新发现和解决问题的价值。但是,一般而言在学院心理学以及特别而言在社会心理学领域,却缺乏一种关键形式的视角多元性:政治多元性。 This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. 本文考察了可见的证据,并为下列四个论断提供了支撑:(1)学院心理学过去曾有过相当大的政治多元性,但在过去50年间几乎已将其丧失殆尽。 (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (2)这种政治多元性的缺乏,可能破坏社会心理科学的有效性,破坏可能通过这样一些机制发生:将自由派价值观预置于研究问题和方法中,引导研究者避开事关重大但在政治上不受待见的研究课题,并得出对自由派抑或保守派特征的错误描绘。 (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking. (3)增加政治多元性,能够改善社会心理科学,其途径包括降低偏见机制如确认偏误的影响,让持异议的少数派有机会改进多数派的思考质量。 (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology. (4)社会心理学中非自由派的人数不足,最有可能是自我选择、敌对气氛以及歧视等因素共同作用的结果。文章结尾我们就增进社会心理学中政治多元化提出了一些建议。

******

1. Introduction 1. 导论 In the last few years, social psychology has faced a series of challenges to the validity of its research, including a few high-profile replication failures, a handful of fraud cases, and several articles on questionable research practices and inflated effect sizes… In this article, we suggest that one largely overlooked cause of failure is a lack of political diversity. We review evidence suggesting that political diversity and dissent would improve the reliability and validity of social psychological science… 过去数年间,社会心理学在其研究有效性上面临一系列挑战,包括一些众人瞩目的试验重复失败,一些造假事件,还有一些文章用的是有问题的研究操作和夸大的效应量……我们在本文中表明,此种失败的一个原因受到广泛忽视,即缺乏政治多元性。我们考察了相关证据,表明政治多元性和异议能够改进社会心理科学的可靠性和有效性…… We focus on conservatives as an underrepresented group because the data on the prevalence in psychology of different ideological groups is best for the liberal-conservative contrast – and the departure from the proportion of liberals and conservatives in the U.S. population is so dramatic. However, we argue that the field needs more non-liberals however they specifically self-identify (e.g., libertarian, moderate)… 我们将保守派这个代表性不足的群体作为关注焦点,因为在心理学中,不同意识形态群体的流行程度数据最适合进行自由派-保守派对比,也因为与全美人口的自由派与保守派占比相比,心理学领域偏差极为惊人。不过,我们论证道,这个领域需要更多非自由派,无论他们的自我认同具体为何(如自由意志主义者、温和派等)…… The lack of political diversity is not a threat to the validity of specific studies in many and perhaps most areas of research in social psychology. The lack of diversity causes problems for the scientific process primarily in areas related to the political concerns of the Left – areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality – as well as in areas where conservatives themselves are studied, such as in moral and political psychology. 多元政治的缺乏对某些特定领域(或许是大多数社会心理学领域)的研究有效性,并不构成威胁。多元政治的缺失造成问题的主要是科研过程中涉及那些跟左派的政治关怀有关的领域——如种族、性别、刻板印象、环保主义、权力和不平等,以及在那些研究对象就包括了保守派的领域——如道德和政治心理学。

******

2. Psychology is less politically diverse than ever 2. 心理学的政治多元性之少史无前例 [In this section we review all available information on the political party identification of psychologists, as well as their liberal-conservative self descriptions. The graph below says it all. Whichever of those two measures you use, you find a big change after 1990. Before the 1990s, academic psychology only LEANED left. Liberals and Democrats outnumbered Conservatives and Republican by 4 to 1 or less. But as the “greatest generation” retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers, the ratio skyrocketed to something more like 12 to 1. In just 20 years. Few psychologists realize just how quickly or completely the field has become a political monoculture. This graph took us by surprise too.] [本部分我们就心理学家的政治党派认同以及他们对属于自由派还是保守派的自我描述,回顾所有可以找到的信息。下列图表说明了一切。不论你采用两种测量方法中的哪一种,你都能发现1990年后发生了一个重大变化。1990年代以前,学院心理学只是倾向左派。自由派和民主党比保守派和共和党多,比率为4:1及以下。但到了1990年代,“最伟大的一代”退休【译注:指1920年代生人,因其经历大萧条、二战、战后重建而与美国同铸辉煌而得此名】,“婴儿潮一代”取而代之【译注:指战后至1960年代中期生人】,这一比率飙升到12:1以上的程度。只用了20年。极少有心理学家意识到这一领域转变为一种政治单一栽培的快速程度和彻底程度。这个图标也令我们大吃一惊。] diversity-graph Figure 1. The political party and ideological sympathies of academic psychologists have shifted leftward over time. Circles show ratios of self-reports of liberal vs. conservative. Diamonds show ratios of self-reports of party preference or voting (Democrat vs. Republican). Data for 1924–60 is reported in McClintock et al. (1965). Open diamonds are participants’ recollections of whom they voted for; gray diamonds are self-reported party identification at time of the survey. Data for 1999 is reported in Rothman et al. (2005). Data from 2006 is reported in Gross and Simmons (2007). The right-most circle is from Inbar and Lammers (2012) and is the ratio of selfidentified liberal/conservative social psychologists. 图1. 学院心理学家的政治党派和意识形态倾向已经随时间流逝而趋向左转。圆形表示自陈自由派的与自陈保守派的比率。菱形则表示自陈的政党偏好或投票记录(民主党vs.共和党)的比率。1924-60年数据据McClintock 等(1965)。空心菱形是参与者对投票给谁的回忆;灰色菱形则是被调查时自陈的政党身份。1999年的数据据Rothman等(2005)。2006年的数据据Gross和 Simmons (2007)。最右边的圆形则来自Inbar和Lammers(2012),指的是自认自由派和自认保守派的社会心理学家之比。

******

3. Three ways that the lack of diversity undermines social psychology 3. 多元性的缺乏对社会心理学造成破坏的三种方式 Might a shared moral-historical narrative [the “liberal progress” narrative described by sociologist Christian Smith] in a politically homogeneous field undermine the self-correction processes on which good science depends? We think so, and present three risk points— three ways in which political homogeneity can threaten the validity of social psychological science—and examples from the extant literature illustrating each point. 在一个政治同质化的领域内,一种共享的道德-历史叙事(社会学家Christian Smith所描绘的那种“自由进步”叙事),会破坏良好科学所赖以存在的自我纠正过程吗?我们认为会,并提出了三个风险点——政治同质性能够威胁社会心理科学有效性的三种方式,针对每一点,我们都从现存文献中提出例证来作了说明。 3.1. Risk point 1: Liberal values and assumptions can become embedded into theory and method 3.1. 风险点之一:自由派价值观和假设可能预装到理论和方法之中 The embedding of values occurs when value statements or ideological claims are wrongly treated as objective truth, and observed deviation from that truth is treated as error. 当价值陈述或意识形态主张被错误地当成客观真理对待时,或者与这一真理有出入的现象被观测到,却被当成错误对待时,价值观的预装就发生了。 [Example:] and McBride (2007) found that: 1) people high in social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely to make unethical decisions, 2) people high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were more likely to go along with the unethical decisions of leaders, and 3) dyads with high SDO leaders and high RWA followers made more unethical decisions than dyads with alternative arrangements (e.g., low SDO—low RWA dyads). [例证:]Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna和 McBride(2007)发现:1)社会支配倾向(SDO)高的人更可能作出不道德的决定,2)右翼权威主义(RWA)程度高的人更可能遵从领导人作出的不道德决定,以及3)高SDO的领导人与高RWA的追随者这一组合作出的不道德决定比其它形式的排列组合(如低SDO和低RWA组合)要多。 Yet consider the decisions they defined as unethical: not formally taking a female colleague’s side in her sexual harassment complaint against her subordinate (given little information about the case), and a worker placing the well-being of his or her company above unspecified harms to the environment attributed to the company’s operations. Liberal values of feminism and environmentalism were embedded directly into the operationalization of ethics, even to the extent that participants were expected to endorse those values in vignettes that lacked the information one would need to make a considered judgment. 不过,看看被他们界定为不道德的决定:在女性同事对其下属提出性骚扰投诉时不正式站在她的一边(几乎没有任何案件相关信息),工人将他或她所属公司的利益置于未明确说明的环境损害之上(这种损害被归罪于该公司的运营)。自由派的女性主义和环保主义价值取向被直接预装进了伦理概念的执行之中,甚至到了这种程度:在某个场景下缺乏信息的个体不得不做出审慎判断,仍指望参与者支持这些价值。 The appearance of certain words that imply pernicious motives (e.g., deny, legitimize, rationalize, justify, defend, trivialize) may be particularly indicative of research tainted by embedded values. 对某些特定词汇的使用,暗中指涉险恶的动机(如拒斥、合法化、合理化、正当化、维护、琐碎化等)。出现这些词汇,可能就具有特别的标志性,表明研究已被预装的价值观污染。 3.2. Risk point 2: Researchers may concentrate on topics that validate the liberal progress narrative and avoid topics that contest that narrative 3.2 风险点之二:研究者可能全神关注那些能够证实自由进步叙事的论题,避开那些对这一叙事构成质疑的论题 Since the enlightenment, scientists have thought of themselves as spreading light and pushing back the darkness. The metaphor is apt, but in a politically homogeneous field, a larger-than-optimal number of scientists shine their flashlights on ideologically important regions of the terrain. Doing so leaves many areas unexplored. Even worse, some areas become walled off, and inquisitive researchers risk ostracism if they venture in. 自启蒙运动以来,科学家们一直认为自己所做的,乃是拒绝黑暗、传播光明的事业。这个暗喻是恰当的,不过,在一个政治同质化的地界,把灯光照向境内那些在意识形态上很重要的领域的科学家数目实在是多得过分。这么做会令许多领域无人探索。更糟糕的是,有些领域还会被高墙围起来,任何求知好问的研究者胆敢冒险进入,就有被放逐的风险。 [Example:] Stereotype accuracy. Since the 1930s, social psychologists have been proclaiming the inaccuracy of social stereotypes, despite lacking evidence of such inaccuracy. Evidence has seemed unnecessary because stereotypes have been, in effect, stereotyped as inherently nasty and inaccurate (see Jussim, 2012a for a review). [例证:]刻板印象的准确性。自1930年代起,社会心理学家一直声称,社会刻板印象是不准确的,尽管他们拿不出相关证据。此类证据一直被视为毫无必要,因为刻板印象本身事实上已经被刻板印象化了,成了一种本质上恶劣且不准确的事物(评论见Jussim, 2012a)。 Some group stereotypes are indeed hopelessly crude and untestable. But some may rest on valid empiricism—and represent subjective estimates of population characteristics (e.g. the proportion of people who drop out of high school, are victims of crime, or endorse policies that support women at work, see Jussim, 2012a, Ryan, 2002 for reviews). 某些群体刻板印象确实无可救药地生硬粗糙、不可验证。但还有一些,则可能确实建立在有效的经验主义基础之上——并体现了对于人群特征的主观估计(比如高中辍学的人口比例、罪案受害者的人口比例、支持职业女性的政策的支持者比例等,评论见Jussim, 2012a和Ryan,2002)。 In this context, it is not surprising that the rigorous empirical study of the accuracy of factual stereotypes was initiated by one of the very few self-avowed conservatives in social psychology—Clark McCauley (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). Since then, dozens of studies by independent researchers have yielded evidence that stereotype accuracy (of all sorts of stereotypes) is one of the most robust effects in all of social psychology (Jussim, 2012a). 在这种氛围中,毫不稀奇,关于有事实基础的刻板印象之准确性,最严谨的经验研究是由社会心理学领域极少见的自陈保守派之一——Clark McCauley开创的(McCauley和Stitt, 1978)。自那以后,独立研究者的数十种研究已经得出证据,在所有社会心理学成果中,(关于所有种类的刻板印象的)刻板印象准确性之说乃是最为有力的之一(Jussim, 2012a)。 Here is a clear example of the value of political diversity: a conservative social psychologist asked a question nobody else thought (or dared) to ask, and found results that continue to make many social psychologists uncomfortable. McCauley’s willingness to put the assumption of stereotype inaccuracy to an empirical test led to the correction of one of social psychology’s most longstanding errors. 这是政治多元性之价值的清楚一例:一个保守派社会心理学家追问了一个别人都没想过(或敢于)去问的问题,并得出了一个让许多社会心理学家现在仍一直感到不舒服的结论。McCauley决心对刻板印象不准确这一假设进行经验验证,这就导致了对于社会心理学中最长寿错误之一的纠正。 3.3. Risk point 3: Negative attitudes regarding conservatives can produce a psychological science that mischaracterizes their traits and attributes 3.3 风险点之三:对于保守派的负面看法可能导致心理科学错误地描绘保守派的特征和性质 A long-standing view in social-political psychology is that the right is more dogmatic and intolerant of ambiguity than the left, a view Tetlock (1983) dubbed the rigidity-of-the-right hypothesis…. But had social psychologists studied a broad enough range of situations to justify these broad conclusions? Recent evidence suggests not. 社会—政治心理学中存在已久的一个看法是,右派比左派更为教条,更不能容忍模棱两可。Tetlock(1983)将这种看法叫作“右派的死板”假说……但是,社会心理学家为了证明这种一般性的结论,是否研究过范围足够广泛的情形?近来的证据显示:并非如此。 The ideologically objectionable premise model (IOPM; Crawford, 2012) posits that people on the political left and right are equally likely to approach political judgments with their ideological blinders on. That said, they will only do so when the premise of a political judgment is ideologically acceptable. If it’s objectionable, any preferences for one group over another will be short-circuited, and biases won’t emerge. 据“意识形态争议性前提模型”(IOPM; Crawford, 2012)推断,政治上的左派和右派戴着意识形态眼罩形成政治判断的可能性是一样大的。当然,这只会发生于政治判断的前提在意识形态上可以接受的情况下。如果这一前提是可争议的,那么偏好其中任意一个群体都会引起直接短路,偏见就不会出现。 The IOPM thus allows for biases to emerge only among liberals, only among conservatives, or among both liberals and conservatives, depending on the situation. For example, reinterpreting Altemeyer’s mandatory school prayer results, Crawford (2012) argued that for people low in RWA who value individual freedom and autonomy, mandatory school prayer is objectionable; thus, the very nature of the judgment should shut off any biases in favor of one target over the other. 由此,随着情况的不同,IOPM模型可让偏见仅出现于自由派中,或仅出现于保守派中,或同时出现于自由派和保守派中。比如,Crawford(2012)在重新解释Altemeyer的强制性学校祷告数据时论证到,对于右翼权威主义(RWA)程度低、看重个体自由与自主的人,强制性学校祷告是可争议的;因此,这一判断的性质本身会将任何重此轻彼的偏见排斥在外。 However, for people high in RWA who value society-wide conformity to traditional morals and values, mandating school prayer is acceptable; this acceptable premise then allows for people high in RWA to express a bias in favor of Christian over Muslim school prayer. 然而,对于RWA程度高、看重全社会对传统道德和价值观的遵从的人,强制性学校祷告是可以接受的;于是,这种可接受的前提就会让RWA程度高的人表达出重基督教校园祈祷者、轻穆斯林校园祈祷者的偏见。 Crawford (2012, Study 1) replaced mandatory prayer with voluntary prayer, which would be acceptable to both people high and low in RWA. In line with the IOPM, people high in RWA were still biased in favor of Christian over Muslim prayer, while people low in RWA now showed a bias in favor of Muslim over Christian voluntary prayer. Hypocrisy is therefore not necessarily a special province of the right. Crawford(2012,研究1)用自愿祈祷者代替强制祈祷者,于是前提变成了对于RWA程度高和低的两种人都可以接受。与IOPM模型预测一致,RWA程度高的人仍然存在重基督教祈祷者、轻穆斯林祈祷者的偏见,与此同时,RWA程度低的人现在表现出重穆斯林自愿祈祷者、轻基督教自愿祈祷者的偏见。因此,虚伪矫饰可不一定是右派的特殊地盘。 These example illustrate the threats to truth-seeking that emerge when members of a politically homogenous intellectual community are motivated to cast their perceived outgroup (i.e., the ones who violate the liberal progressive narrative) in a negative light. If there were more social psychologists who were motivated to question the design and interpretation of studies biased towards liberal values during peer review, or if there were more researchers running their own studies using different methods, social psychologists could be more confident in the validity of their characterizations of conservatives (and liberals). 这些例子说明,当一个政治同质化的知识群体的成员被鼓励用一种负面灯光去映照他们所理解的圈外人士(比如,冒犯自由进步叙事的人)时,追求真理的事业会受到何种威胁。如果在同行评审中,能有更多的社会心理学家被鼓励去质疑那些偏向自由派价值观的研究的设计和解释,如果能有更多的研究者采用不同的方法来进行他们自己的研究,社会心理学家就能对他们关于保守派(和自由派)的描绘的可信度拥有更多自信。

******

4. Why political diversity is likely to improve social psychological science 4. 为什么政治多元性有可能改进社会心理科学 Diversity can be operationalized in many ways, including demographic diversity (e.g., ethnicity, race, and gender) and viewpoint diversity (e.g., variation in intellectual viewpoints or professional expertise). 将多元性这一概念变得可操作的方式很多,包括人口学多元化(如族群、种族和性别)和视角多元化(比如各种不同的知识视角或专业技能)。 Research in organizational psychology suggest that: a) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are more consistent and pronounced than those of demographic diversity (Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998); and 组织心理学研究表明:a)视角多元化比人口学多元化的益处更为一贯、更为显著(Menz, 2012; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998);又 b) the benefits of viewpoint diversity are most pronounced when organizations are pursuing open-ended exploratory goals (e.g., scientific discovery) as opposed to exploitative goals (e.g., applying well-established routines to well-defined problems; Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008). b)与追求利用性目标(比如,在界定明确的问题上执行已良好确立的例行程序)的组织相比,在追求开放式的探索性目标(比如,科学发现)的组织中,视角多元化的益处最为显著(Cannella, Park & Hu, 2008)。 Viewpoint diversity may therefore be more valuable than demographic diversity if social psychology’s core goal is to produce broadly valid and generalizable conclusions. (Of course, demographic diversity can bring viewpoint diversity, but if it is viewpoint diversity that is wanted, then it may be more effective to pursue it directly.) 因此,如果社会心理学的核心目标在于得出广泛有效且可以一般化的结论,那么视角多元性似乎比人口学多元性更有价值。(当然,人口学多元性能带来视角多元性,但如果我们需要的正是视角多元性,那么直接追求它可能更为有效。) It is the lack of political viewpoint diversity that makes social psychology vulnerable to the three risks described in the previous section. Political diversity is likely to have a variety of positive effects by reducing the impact of two familiar mechanisms that we explore below: confirmation bias and groupthink/majority consensus. 正是政治视角多元性的缺乏,才使得社会心理学在前一部分描述的三大风险面前显得很脆弱。通过削弱我们下面将讨论的两个我们熟知的机制的影响,政治多元性很可能具有多种多样的积极功效:确认偏误和群体思维/多数一致。 4.1. Confirmation bias 4.1 确认偏误 People tend to search for evidence that will confirm their existing beliefs while also ignoring or downplaying disconfirming evidence. This confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) is widespread among both laypeople and scientists (Ioannidis, 2012). Confirmation bias can become even stronger when people confront questions that trigger moral emotions and concerns about group identity (Haidt, 2001; 2012). 人们更喜欢为他们已有的信念搜罗证据,同时无视或轻视与既有信念抵触的证据。这种确认偏误(Nickerson, 1998)在外行和科学家中都很常见(Ioannidis, 2012)。当人们面对的问题还能够引发对于群体认同的道德情绪和关怀时,确认偏误可能会变得更为强烈(Haidt, 2001; 2012)。 Further, group-polarization often exacerbates extremism in echo chambers (Lamm & Myers, 1978). [and note from the graph above that social psychology has become an echo chamber since the 1990s] 此外,群体的极化通常还会在回音室中加剧极端主义(Lamm & Myers, 1978)。[并且注意,前面的图表已经显示,社会心理学自1990年代起已经变成了一个回音室]。 Indeed, people are far better at identifying the flaws in other people’s evidence-gathering than in their own, especially if those other people have dissimilar beliefs (e.g., Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber et al., 2010). 实在来说,人们在别人的证据搜集过程中找出错误,可比针对自己时要得心应手得多,特别是当别人具有不同的信念时(如见Mercier & Sperber, 2011; Sperber等, 2010)。 Although such processes may be beneficial for communities whose goal is social cohesion (e.g., a religious or activist movement), they can be devastating for scientific communities by leading to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions (see, e.g., the three risk points discussed previously). 对于目标在于社会团结的共同体(如一个宗教运动或激进运动)来说,这类事情也许是有益的,但是对于科学共同体来说,这将是毁灭性的。因为它们将会导致一些被广泛接受的论断产生,而这些论断更多反映的是科学共同体的盲点,而非科学上得到证明的结论(如见前文所论的三个风险点)。 The most obvious cure for this problem is to increase the viewpoint diversity of the field. Nobody has found a way to eradicate confirmation bias in individuals (Lilienfeld et al., 2009), but we can diversify the field to the point where individual viewpoint biases begin to cancel each other out. 对于这个问题,最显而易见的疗法就是增加该领域的视角多元性。从来没有人找到过在个体身上根除确认偏误的办法(Lilienfeld等, 2009),但我们可以不断增加一个领域的多元性,直到个体的视角偏见开始相互抵消。 4.2. Minority influence 4.2 众从 Minority influence research has focused on the processes by which minorities influence majority members’ (and thus the groups’) reasoning (e.g., Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). Majorities influence decision-making by producing conformity pressure that creates cohesion and community, but they do little to enhance judgmental depth or quality (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). They also risk creating the type of groupthink that has long been a target of criticism by social psychologists (e.g., Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…. 众从研究聚焦于一种过程:少数派影响多数成员(进而是整个群体)的论证(如见Crano, 2012; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。多数派通过制造顺从压力影响决策,而这种压力能够创造凝聚力和共同体,但无益于提高决断的深度或质量(Crisp & Turner, 2011; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980)。他们也导致群体思维的风险,而这被社会心理学家诟病已久(如见Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004; Janis, 1972)…… There is even evidence that politically diverse teams produce more creative solutions than do politically homogeneous teams on problems such as “how can a person of average talent achieve fame” and how to find funding for a partially-built church ineligible for bank loans (Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965)…. 甚至有证据表明,即使是在“某个资质平平的人如何成名”以及怎样为一个烂尾的教堂筹集资金,取得银行贷款这样的问题上,政治上多元的团队也比政治同质的团队更能找到创造性的解决方案。 In sum, there are grounds for hypothesizing that increased political diversity would improve the quality of social psychological science because it would increase the degree of scientific dissent, especially, on such politicized issues as inequality versus equity, the psychological characteristics of liberals and conservatives, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social psychologists have shown these effects in many settings; they could take advantage of them within their own ranks. 总之,政治多元性的增加有助于改善社会心理科学的质量,这一假设是有理有据的,因为它会增加科学分歧的程度。当我们面对的是诸如不平等与平等、自由派和保守派的心理特征、刻板印象、偏见和歧视等等政治化的议题时,情况尤其如此。社会心理学家已经针对许多场合说明过此类效应;他们可以在自己的队伍中好好对其加以利用。

******

5. Why are there so few non-liberals in social psychology? 5. 为什么非自由派在社会心理学中难得一见? the evidence does not point to a single answer. To understand why conservatives are so vastly underrepresented in social psychology, we consider five explanations that have frequently been offered to account for a lack of diversity not just in social psychology, but in other contexts (e.g., the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in STEM fields, e.g., Pinker, 2008). 证据表明,答案不止一个。为了理解为什么保守派在社会心理学中的人数如此不足,我们考虑了五种解释,这五种解释不仅在说明社会心理学中多元性的缺乏时,而且在其它学术文章中也经常被人提到(如在STEM领域内妇女和少数族裔的缺乏,如见Pinker, 2008)【译注:STEM为科学、技术、工程和数学四个学科的英文首字母缩写】。 5.1. Differences in ability 5.1. 能力差异 [Are conservatives simply less intelligent than liberals, and less able to obtain PhDs and faculty positions?] The evidence does not support this view… [published studies are mixed. Part of the complexity is that…] Social conservatism correlates with lower cognitive ability test scores, but economic conservatism correlates with higher scores (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008). [Libertarians are the political group with the highest IQ, yet they are underrepresented in the social sciences other than economics] [难道保守派就是没有自由派那么聪明,取得博士学位和教职岗位的能力要差些?]证据不支持这种观点……[已有的研究形形色色。情况的复杂性部分体现在……]社会保守派与认知能力测试得分较低存在相关性,不过经济保守派则与得分较高存在相关性(Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008)[自由意志主义者是IQ最高的政治团体,但他们在除经济学以外的所有社会科学中人数均不足] 5.2. The effects of education on political ideology 5.2. 政治意识形态教育的影响 Many may view education as “enlightening” and believe that an enlightened view comports with liberal politics. There is little evidence that education causes students to become more liberal. Instead, several longitudinal studies following tens of thousands of college students for many years have concluded that political socialization in college occurs primarily as a function of one’s peers, not education per se (Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997). 许多人可能将教育视为“启蒙”,并相信经过启蒙的观念会与自由派政治一致。鲜有证据表明教育会使得学生更为趋向自由派。几项对数万名大学生的多年追踪研究倒是得出结论认为,大学里的政治社会化过程【译注:指个体形塑政治态度的过程】主要取决于一个人的同伴,而非教育本身(Astin, 1993; Dey, 1997)。 5.3. Differences in interest 5.3. 兴趣差异 Might liberals simply find a career in social psychology (or the academy more broadly) more appealing? Yes, for several reasons. The Big-5 trait that correlates most strongly with political liberalism is openness to experience (r = .32 in Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloways’s 2003 meta-analysis), and people high in that trait are more likely to pursue careers that will let them indulge their curiosity and desire to learn, such as a career in the academy (McCrae, 1996). An academic career requires a Ph.D., and liberals enter (and graduate) college more interested in pursuing Ph.D.s than do conservatives (Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)… 有没有可能就是因为自由派觉得社会心理学(或更广泛而言,整个学术界)这种职业更有吸引力?有可能,理由有多个。与政治自由主义相关性最强的“五大”人格特点【译注:五大人格特点,指心理学上描述人格特征时常用的五维度模型,分别为外倾性、经验开放性、随和性、神经质和尽责性】就是“经验开放性”(在Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski和 Sulloways 2003年所做的meta分析中,r=0.32),而在这一特点上得分高的人更有可能从事能让他们的好奇心和求知欲得到满足的职业,比如学术事业(McCrae, 1996)。从事学术事业要求博士学位,而入读大学(和从大学毕业)的自由派比保守派更有兴趣谋求博士学位(Woessner & Kelly-Woessner, 2009)…… Such intrinsic variations in interest may be amplified by a “birds of a feather” or “homophile” effect. “Similarity attracts” is one of the most well-established findings in social psychology (Byrne, 1969). As a field begins to lean a certain way, the field will likely become increasingly attractive to people suited to that leaning. 这种兴趣上的内在差异有可能通过“物以类聚”或“同性相爱”效应而得到放大。“同类相吸”是社会心理学中理据最为坚实的成果之一(Byrne, 1969)。随着某个领域开始向一个特定方向倾斜,那么对于适应这种倾斜的人,这个领域就很可能会变得越来越具有吸引力。 Over time the group itself may become characterized by its group members. Professors and scientists may come to be seen as liberal just as nurses are typically thought of as being female. Once that happens, conservatives may disproportionately self-select out of joining the dissimilar group, based on a realistic perception that they “do not fit well.” [See Gross (2013)]… 长此以往,群体本身就被其成员特征化了。教授和科学家可能会逐渐被视为自由派,就像护士经常被理解成为女性一样。一旦如此,保守派就可能自我选择不参加这种异己群体,因为他们有一种现实的认知:他们“合不来”(见Gross , 2013)…… Self-selection clearly plays a role. But it would be ironic if an epistemic community resonated to empirical arguments that appear to exonerate the community of prejudice—when that same community roundly rejects those same arguments when invoked by other institutions to explain the under-representation of women or ethnic minorities (e.g., in STEM disciplines or other elite professions). [Note: we agree that self-selection is a big part of the explanation. If there were no discrimination and no hostile climate, the field would still lean left, as it used to. But it would still have some diversity, and would work much better.] 自我选择很明显起了作用。但是,这种经验论证似乎是在为共同体的歧视行为洗白,如果一个知识共同体与之产生共鸣,这会太讽刺——而且,正是这同一个共同体,在其它机构使用同一论证来解释女性或少数族裔代表性不足的问题时(如在STEM学科或其它精英行业中),对自我选择解释表示了严厉的拒斥。[注意:我们同意,自我选择在原因中占了很大比例。如果不存在歧视、不存在敌对的气氛,这个领域仍然会左倾,正如它在1990年代之前那样。但是它仍会有某种程度的多元性,并会运作得好得多。] 5.4. Hostile climate 5.4. 敌对气氛 Might self-selection be amplified by an accurate perception among conservative students that they are not welcome in the social psychology community? Consider the narrative of conservatives that can be formed from some recent conclusions in social psychological research: compared to liberals, conservatives are less intelligent (Hodson & Busseri, 2012) and less cognitively complex (Jost et al., 2003). They are more rigid, dogmatic, and inflexible (Jost et al., 2003). Their lower IQ explains their racism and sexism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), and their endorsement of inequality explains why they are happier than liberals (Napier & Jost, 2008). 自我选择有没有可能因为保守派学生的一种正确认知——他们得不到社会心理学共同体的欢迎——而被放大?考虑一下我们能从最近的一些社会心理学研究结论中得出的关于保守派的叙述:比起自由派,保守派没那么聪明(Hodson & Busseri, 2012),认知复杂度没那么高(Jost等, 2003)。他们更死板、更教条、更不懂变通(Jost等, 2003)。他们IQ低,所以他们有种族主义和性别歧视(Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008),他们对不平等的支持正是他们之所以比自由派更快乐的理由(Napier & Jost, 2008)。 As conservative undergraduates encounter the research literature in their social psychology classes, might they recognize cues that the field regards them and their beliefs as defective? And what happens if they do attend graduate school and take part in conferences, classes, and social events in which almost everyone else is liberal? 当保守派本科生在他们的社会心理学课堂上接触到研究文献时,他们是否可能认出这种信号,猜到这个领域认为他们以及他们的信念存在缺陷?如果他们确实念上了研究生,那么当他们参会、上课、参加社会活动时,发现参与者几乎个个都是自由派,这时会发生什么? We ourselves have often heard jokes and disparaging comments made by social psychologists about conservatives, not just in informal settings but even from the podium at conferences and lectures. The few conservatives who have enrolled in graduate programs hear these comments too, and some of them wrote to Haidt in the months after his 2011 remarks at the SPSP convention to describe the hostility and ridicule that force them to stay “in the closet” about their political beliefs—or to leave the field entirely. 我们自己就经常听到社会心理学家关于保守派的种种笑话和鄙夷的评论,这不仅出现于非正式场合,而且也出现在会议和讲座的讲台上。注册参加了研究生项目的几个罕见的保守派学生,也听到了这些评论,其中一些在听了Haidt在人格与社会心理学学会2011年年会上所发评论后的几个月里还曾给他写信。他们在信中描写到,敌对和嘲弄迫使他们将自己的政治信念藏在“深柜”——或干脆离开这个领域。 Haidt (2011) put excerpts from these emails online (in anonymous form); representative of them is this one from a former graduate student in a top 10 Ph.D. program: Haidt(2011)在网上贴出了这些邮件的摘录(以匿名形式);其中一封的作者曾是排名前十的博士项目的研究生,很具有代表性:
I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it was for me in graduate school because I am not a liberal Democrat. As one example, following Bush’s defeat of Kerry, one of my professors would email me every time a soldier’s death in Iraq made the headlines; he would call me out, publicly blaming me for not supporting Kerry in the election. 要向你描述我在研究生院时因为不是自由派民主党而过得有多么艰难,我都没法开始。举个例子吧,布什打败克里之后,每逢有驻伊士兵死亡事件上头条,有位教授就会给我发邮件;他会指名道姓的公开指责我没在选举中支持克里。 I was a reasonably successful graduate student, but the political ecology became too uncomfortable for me. Instead of seeking the professorship that I once worked toward, I am now leaving academia for a job in industry. 作为一个研究生,我相当成功,但政治生态变得令我非常不舒服。我没有去谋求我曾为之奋斗的教授职位,而是离开学术圈,现在在实业部门工作。
Evidence of hostile climate is not just anecdotal. Inbar and Lammers (2012) asked members of the SPSP discussion list: “Do you feel that there is a hostile climate towards your political beliefs in your field?” 敌对气氛存在的证据并非只有个别逸闻。Inbar和 Lammers(2012)曾询问人格与社会心理学学会讨论组成员以下问题:“你是否觉得你所在的领域针对你的政治信念存在一种敌对气氛?” Of 17 conservatives, 14 (82%) responded “yes” (i.e., a response at or above the midpoint of the scale, where the midpoint was labeled “somewhat” and the top point “very much”), with half of those responding “very much.” 17个保守派中,14个(即82%)回答了“是”(即回应大于等于量表的中间选项,中间选项是“有些”,最大值则是“非常”),答“是”的人中又有一半回答的是“非常”。 In contrast, only 18 of 266 liberals (7%) responded “yes”, with only two of those responding “very much.” Interestingly, 18 of 25 moderates (72%) responded “yes,” with one responding “very much.” 与此形成对比的是,266个自由派中只有18个(即7%)回答了“是”,其中只有两个答的是“非常”。有意思的是,25个温和派中有18个(即72%)回答了“是”,1个答“非常”。 This surprising result suggests that the hostile climate may adversely affect not only conservatives, but anyone who is not liberal or whose values do not align with the liberal progress narrative. 这一令人惊讶的结果表明,敌对气氛所产生的负面影响不仅仅是对保守派而言,而且针对所有的非自由派,或者所有价值观不能与自由进步叙事相符的人。 5.5. Discrimination 5.5 歧视 The literature on political prejudice demonstrates that strongly identified partisans show little compunction about expressing their overt hostility toward the other side (e.g., Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012). Partisans routinely believe that their hostility towards opposing groups is justified because of the threat posed to their values by dissimilar others (see Brandt et al., 2014, for a review). 政治偏见方面的研究文献证明,认同感强烈的党徒毫不避讳公开表达对对方的敌意(如见Chambers等, 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Haidt, 2012)。党徒们例行公事般认为他们针对对立团体的敌视态度是合理的,因为异己分子威胁到他们珍视的价值(相关评论见Brandt 等, 2014)。 Social psychologists are unlikely to be immune to such psychological processes. Indeed, ample evidence using multiple methods demonstrates that social psychologists do in fact act in discriminatory ways toward non-liberal colleagues and their research. 社会心理学家不太可能对这种心理过程免疫。事实上,基于多种方法的大量证据表明,社会心理学家确实以歧视方式对待他们的非自由派同事及其学术研究。 [Here we review experimental field research: if you change a research proposal so that its hypotheses sound conservative, but you leave the methods the same, then the manuscript is deemed less publishable, and is less likely to get IRB approval] [我们这里来回顾一下实验性的实地研究:如果改动一下你的研究计划,使其假设看起来像个保守派假设,但研究方法保持不变,那么这个稿子发表的可能性在人们眼里就会降低,得到伦理委员会认可的可能性也会降低] Inbar and Lammers (2012) found that most social psychologists who responded to their survey were willing to explicitly state that they would discriminate against conservatives. Their survey posed the question: “If two job candidates (with equal qualifications) were to apply for an opening in your department, and you knew that one was politically quite conservative, do you think you would be inclined to vote for the more liberal one?” Inbar和Lammers(2012)发现,绝大多数接受调查的社会心理学家都愿意明白无误地表明,他们会歧视保守派。他们在调查中提出这样一个问题:“两个求职者(条件相同)申请你所在院系的空缺,你要是知道其中一个政治上特别保守,你觉得你会倾向于投票赞成更自由派的那个吗?” Of the 237 liberals, only 42 (18%) chose the lowest scale point, “not at all.” In other words, 82% admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative candidate, and 43% chose the midpoint (“somewhat”) or above. In contrast, the majority of moderates (67%) and conservatives (83%) chose the lowest scale point (“not at all”)…. 在237个自由派中,仅有42个(即18%)选择了量表上的最低值,“绝不会”。换句话说,82%的人承认他们至少会对保守派求职者有一点点歧视,43%选择了中间值(“有些”)及以上。与此形成对比的是,多数温和派(67%)和保守派(83%)选择了最低值(“绝不”)…… Conservative graduate students and assistant professors are behaving rationally when they keep their political identities hidden, and when they avoid voicing the dissenting opinions that could be of such great benefit to the field. Moderate and libertarian students may be suffering the same fate. 当保守派研究生和助理教授隐瞒他们政治派别时,他们是在依理性行事,然而如果他们缄默不言,那却将是这个领域的巨大损失。温和派和自由意志主义的学生或许也正在遭受同一命运。

******

6. Recommendations 6. 建议 [Please see the longer discussion of recommended steps on our “Solutions” page. In the BBS paper we offer a variety of specific recommendations for what can be done to ameliorate the problem. These are divided into three sections] [建议措施的更长讨论,见我们的“方案”页面。在发表于《行为与脑科学》的文章中,我们提供了多种具体可行建议,以改进这一问题。建议分为三部分] 6.1. Organizational responses 6.1. 组织方面的回应 [We looked at the list of policy steps that the American Psychological Association recommended for itself to improve diversity with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Many of them work well for increasing political diversity, e.g.,:] [我们查看了美国心理学会为增加自身的种族、性别和性取向多元性而建议的系列政策措施。其中许多同样可以有效的增加政治多元性,如……]
  • Formulate and adopt an anti-discrimination policy resolution.
  • 制定并采纳一项反歧视政策决议。
  • Implement a “climate study” regarding members’ experiences, comfort/discomfort, and positive/negative attitudes/opinions/policies affecting or about members of politically diverse groups.
  • 实施一项“气氛研究”,研究对象是其成员的经历,包括舒适的/不适的,以及他们持有的、会影响政治多样化的不同团体(或与他们有关)的积极/消极的态度/观点/政策
  • Each organization should develop strategies to encourage and support research training programs and research conferences to attract, retain, and graduate conservative and other non-liberal doctoral students and early career professionals.
  • 每一个组织都应该形成各种策略,鼓励和支持研究训练项目和研究会议去吸引、留住或毕业送走保守派及其他非自由派博士研究生和新入行的业内人士。
6.2. Professorial responses 6.2. 教授方面的回应 There are many steps that social psychologists who are also college professors can take to encourage non-liberal students to join the field, or to “come out of the closet”: 1) Raise consciousness [acknowledge publicly that we have problem]; 2) Welcome feedback from non-liberals. 3) Expand diversity statements. [i.e., add “political diversity” to any list of kinds of diversity being encouraged]. 同时身为大学教授的社会心理学家,可以采用多个措施来鼓励非自由派学生加入这个领域,或者“出柜”:1)提高意识[公开承认我们有问题];2)欢迎非自由派的反馈。3)扩充有关多元性的声明。[即在任何形式的多元性鼓励列表中加入“政治多元性”]。 6.3. Changes to research practices 6.3. 改变研究做法 1.Be alert to double standards. 2. Support adversarial collaborations.  3. Improve research norms to increase the degree to which a research field becomes self-correcting. 1.警惕双重标准。2. 支持对抗性合作。3. 改进研究规范,以增加研究领域趋向自我纠正的程度。

******

7. Conclusion 7. 结论 Others have sounded this alarm before (e.g., MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)… No changes were made in response to the previous alarms, but we believe that this time may be different. Social psychologists are in deep and productive discussions about how to address multiple threats to the integrity of their research and publication process. This may be a golden opportunity for the field to take seriously the threats caused by political homogeneity. 早已有人敲响过这一警钟(如MacCoun, 1998; Redding, 2001; Tetlock, 1994)……对于之前的警钟却无人回应,不过我们相信这次可能有点不同。关于如何应对他们的研究和出版程序之健全性所面临的诸多威胁的问题,社会心理学家目前正在进行深入且卓有成效的讨论。现在也许就是严肃对待政治同质化所导致危机的黄金时期。 We have focused on social (and personality) psychology, but the problems we describe occur in other areas of psychology (Redding, 2001), as well as in other social sciences (Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013). 我们的焦点是社会(及人格)心理学,但我们所描述的问题也发生于心理学的其它领域(Redding, 2001),以及其它社会科学领域(Gross, 2013; Redding, 2013)。 Fortunately, psychology is uniquely well-prepared to rise to the challenge. The five core values of APA include “continual pursuit of excellence; knowledge and its application based upon methods of science; outstanding service to its members and to society; social justice, diversity and inclusion; ethical action in all that we do.” (APA, 2009). 幸运地是,心理学是唯一有准备来应对之个挑战的领域。美国心理学会的五大核心价值包括“不断追求卓越;基于科学方法的知识及其应用;对成员和社会的出色服务;社会正义、多元性和包容性;一切行动遵守伦理规范。”(APA, 2009)。 If discrimination against non-liberals exists at even half the level described in section 4 of this paper, and if this discrimination damages the quality of some psychological research, then all five core values are being betrayed. 如果针对非自由派的歧视存在,哪怕只达到本文第四部分所描述的一半水平,且如果这种歧视损害了某些心理学研究的质量,那就和五大核心价值背道而驰了。 Will psychologists tolerate and defend the status quo, or will psychology make the changes needed to realize its values and improve its science? Social psychology can and should lead the way. 心理学家会容忍并捍卫现状?还是心理学会作出必要改变,实现自己所珍视的价值,改进这一科学?社会心理学能够且应该带个好头。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

往你身上抹鼻涕

【2016-03-08】

@pkuwd: to@whigzhou 嫁个男人生五个孩子在家里做主这种不算女权!做个飞行员比嫁个飞行员好!能争取成为市长远好过争取成为市长夫人!

@whigzhou: 嫁男人生孩子当然不算女权,做飞行员当市长也不算,惊叹号再多也不算,只有要求飞行员中女性比例必须达到50%,市议会里女性席位不得少于50%,才算,你out了~

@whigzhou: 早期女权主义者(和其他进步主义者一样)是我尊重的,她们依靠自身的努力与付出(more...)

标签: | |
7048
【2016-03-08】 @pkuwd: to@whigzhou 嫁个男人生五个孩子在家里做主这种不算女权!做个飞行员比嫁个飞行员好!能争取成为市长远好过争取成为市长夫人! @whigzhou: 嫁男人生孩子当然不算女权,做飞行员当市长也不算,惊叹号再多也不算,只有要求飞行员中女性比例必须达到50%,市议会里女性席位不得少于50%,才算,你out了~ @whigzhou: 早期女权主义者(和其他进步主义者一样)是我尊重的,她们依靠自身的努力与付出、亲身实践,去突破文化与制度障碍,为自己也为弱势女性争取更多自由,但这种女权主义(和其他进步主义)在当代已经十分罕见了,回顾起来,早期与后期的分界线大概是在大萧条时代。 @whigzhou: 如今触目可见的女权主义(和其他进步主义),多是我所称的“犟叫花”型,在她们看来,为她们提供某些机会、资源或条件,让她们达到某种生活状态,是其他社会成员的义务,若是不给,就往你们身上抹鼻涕 @whigzhou: 她们不仅往拒绝承认或被认为未能履行好保姆义务的人身上抹鼻涕,还会往那些安于传统角色的女性身上抹鼻涕,好像只有她们才知道该怎么做个女人