How do daily habits lead to political violence? | Christiane-Marie Abu Sarah

Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Camille Martínez

譯者: Jing-Ai Huang 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

So I'm starting us out today with a historical mystery.

我今天先來談談一個歷史謎團。

In 1957, there were two young women,

在 1957 年，有兩名年輕的女人，

both in their 20s,

他們都 20 幾歲、

both living in the same city,

住在同一個都市、

both members of the same political group.

是同一個政治團體的成員。

That year, both decided to commit violent attacks.

那年，他們倆決定進行暴力襲擊。

One girl took a gun and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

其中一個女生，拿著槍，

朝著一名檢察站的軍人前進。

The other girl took a bomb and went to a crowded café.

另一名女生拿著炸彈 走向擁擠的咖啡廳。

But here's the thing:

但重點是兩者當中，

one of the those girls followed through with the attack,

一名女生繼續照著計畫做，

but the other turned back.

另一 名女生卻放棄了。

So what made the difference?

那這個決定是什麼造成的呢？

I'm a behavioral historian, and I study aggression,

我是個行為歷史專家

研究社會運動中的侵略性、

moral cognition

and decision-making in social movements.

道德認知和決策。

That's a mouthful. (Laughs)

聽起來很繞口吧。（笑）

So, the translation of that is:

換句話說，

I study the moment an individual decides to pull the trigger,

我研究的是一個人 決定扣扳機的那一刻；

the day-to-day decisions that led up to that moment

事情的發展如何引導他 在那一刻決定扣下板機，

and the stories that they tell themselves about why that behavior is justified.

以及他們如何說服自己 這樣做是合理的。

Now, this topic --

這個話題

it's not just scholarly for me.

並不只是學術性的，

It's actually a bit personal.

它對我來說是個挺私人的問題。

I grew up in Kootenai County, Idaho,

我在愛達荷州 Kootenai 郡長大，

and this is very important.

這點非常重要。

This is not the part of Idaho with potatoes.

這一部份的愛達荷州 並沒有馬鈴薯。

We have no potatoes.

我們沒有馬鈴薯。

And if you ask me about potatoes,

如果你問我馬鈴薯的問題，

I will find you.

你要小心一點。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This part of Idaho is known for mountain lakes,

我住的地方以高山湖泊、

horseback riding,

騎馬、滑雪而知名。

skiing.

Unfortunately, starting in the 1980s,

不幸的是，1980 年代開始，

it also became known as the worldwide headquarters

它也被稱為雅利安民族的總部。

for the Aryan Nations.

Every year, members of the local neo-Nazi compound

每年當地的新納粹主義者 會從他們的聚落傾巢而出，

would turn out and march through our town,

在我們城裡遊行，

and every year,

城裡的居民就會出來抗議。

members of our town would turn out and protest them.

Now, in 2001, I graduated from high school,

在 2001 年，我高中畢業，

and I went to college in New York City.

並上了在紐約的一間大學。

I arrived in August 2001.

我在 2001 年的八月抵達學校。

As many of you probably are aware,

你們知道，

three weeks later,

三週後，

the Twin Towers went down.

世貿雙子星大樓就倒塌了。

Now, I was shocked.

我很震驚。

I was incredibly angry.

我非常生氣。

I wanted to do something,

我想做點事情，

but the only thing that I could think of doing at that time

但是那時我只有想到

was to study Arabic.

我可以學阿拉伯語。

I will admit,

我承認，我是班上那個想要知道

I was that girl in class that wanted to know why "they" hate "us."

「他們」為什麼會 討厭「我們」的女生。

I started studying Arabic for very wrong reasons.

以這個理由學習阿拉伯語真的很糟。

But something unexpected happened.

但是出乎意料的事情發生了。

我拿到一個以色列學校的獎學金。

I got a scholarship to go study in Israel.

So the Idaho girl went to the Middle East.

因此，愛達荷州的女孩去了中東。

And while I was there, I met Palestinian Muslims,

我在那裡留學時， 遇到了巴勒斯坦穆斯林、

巴勒斯坦基督教徒、

Palestinian Christians,

以色列定居者、

Israeli settlers,

Israeli peace activists.

以色列和平主義者。

And what I learned is that every act has an ecology.

我了解到，每一個行為都有其生態。

It has a context.

它都會有原因。

從那次之後，我走遍了全世界，

Now, since then, I have gone around the world,

I have studied violent movements,

研究暴力運動。

I have worked with NGOs and ex-combatants in Iraq,

我也與伊拉克、敘利亞、 越南、巴爾幹、

古巴的非政府組織 和前戰鬥人員們合作。

Syria,

Vietnam,

the Balkans,

Cuba.

I earned my PhD in History,

我獲得了歷史博士學位，

and now what I do is I go to different archives

現在要做的就是去不同的檔案館，

and I dig through documents,

翻閱文件，

looking for police confessions,

尋找警察的供詞紀錄、

court cases,

法庭案件、

diaries and manifestos of individuals involved in violent attacks.

暴力襲擊者的日記和宣言。

Now, you gather all these documents --

當你搜集了所有的檔案，

what do they tell you?

他們會說什麼呢？

Our brains love causal mysteries,

我們都喜歡

意想不到的謎團。

it turns out.

So any time we see an attack on the news,

所以每次我們在 新聞上看到攻擊事件，

我們都會問：

we tend to ask one question:

Why?

「為什麼？

Why did that happen?

為什麼會發生這種事？」

Well, I can tell you I've read thousands of manifestos,

我已經看過上千個宣言，

and what you find out is that they are actually imitative.

所以我可以告訴你， 他們其實都在模仿別人。

They imitate the political movement that they're drawing from.

他們從模仿的對象 汲取政治運動的宣言。

So they actually don't tell us a lot about decision-making

所以在這種情況下，

我們看不出來他們的決策方式。

in that particular case.

So we have to teach ourselves to ask a totally different question.

所以我們必須問一個 完全不一樣的問題。

Instead of "Why?" we have to ask "How?"

我們不該問：「為什麼?」 我們應該問：「怎麼會這樣？」

How did individuals produce these attacks,

他們是如何攻擊的，

and how did their decision-making ecology contribute to violent behavior?

他們的決策生態 又如何導致這種暴力行為?

There's a couple things I've learned from asking this kind of question.

我從問這種問題中學到了幾件事。

The most important thing is that

最重要的是，

political violence is not culturally endemic.

政治暴力不是某些文化特有的，

We create it.

而是我們創造的。

And whether we realize it or not,

不論我們有沒有注意到，

our day-to-day habits contribute to the creation of violence

我們的日常習慣都可能在

生活的環境中造成暴力。

in our environment.

So here's a couple of habits that I've learned contribute to violence.

因此，我學到的是， 有幾種行為會促成暴力行為。

One of the first things that attackers did

攻擊者在準備執行暴力事件時，

when preparing themselves for a violent event

做的第一件事，

was they enclosed themselves in an information bubble.

就是把自己包在一個 假新聞的洗腦泡泡裡。

我們都聽說過假新聞吧。

We've heard of fake news, yeah?

Well, this shocked me:

讓我挺震驚的是，

我研究的每個小組 都有某種假新聞口號。

every group that I studied had some kind of a fake news slogan.

French communists called it the "putrid press."

法國共產黨叫它「腐爛的新聞」。

法國超民族主義者叫它「暢銷新聞」

French ultranationalists called it the "sellout press"

and the "treasonous press."

和「叛逆新聞」。

Islamists in Egypt called it the "depraved news."

在埃及的伊斯蘭主義者 叫它「墜落的新聞」。

And Egyptian communists called it ...

埃及的共產主義者就會叫它

「假新聞」。

"fake news."

So why do groups spend all this time trying to make these information bubbles?

所以他們為什麼會花那麼多時間， 創造這些假新聞泡泡呢？

The answer is actually really simple.

答案其實非常簡單。

We make decisions based on the information we trust, yeah?

我們都會根據我們信任的資訊， 作出決定，是吧。

So if we trust bad information,

所以如果我們相信不對的資訊，

我們就會做不好的決定。

we're going to make bad decisions.

Another interesting habit that individuals used

有趣的，一個人想要發動

when they wanted to produce a violent attack

暴力攻擊的另一個習慣是，

was that they looked at their victim not as an individual

他們只會把受害者當成

敵對組織的成員看待， 而不是把它看作是一個人。

but just as a member of an opposing team.

這很奇怪。

Now this gets really weird.

There's some fun brain science behind why that kind of thinking is effective.

這些想法的背後是 一些有趣的腦科學。

Say I divide all of you guys into two teams:

假設我把你們分成兩隊：

blue team,

藍隊

red team.

和紅隊。

And then I ask you to compete in a game against each other.

我再叫你們在遊戲中互相競爭。

Well, the funny thing is, within milliseconds,

有趣的是，

轉眼間你的心態就變了；

you will actually start experiencing pleasure -- pleasure --

你會因為對手的失誤而感到開心。

when something bad happens to members of the other team.

The funny thing about that is if I ask one of you blue team members

更有趣的是，如果我叫一名藍隊的成員

to go and join the red team,

轉到紅隊，

your brain recalibrates,

你的大腦就會重新調整，

and within milliseconds,

轉眼間，

you will now start experiencing pleasure

當您的舊隊友發生失誤時，

when bad things happen to members of your old team.

您也會開始感到愉悅。

這就是一個很好的例子，

This is a really good example of why us-them thinking is so dangerous

來說明以「我們」、｢他們」 將人群歸類的思維，

在我們的政治環境有多麼危險。

in our political environment.

Another habit that attackers used to kind of rev themselves up for an attack

另一個攻擊者常有的習慣是，

他們會專注在他與受害者之間的差異。

was they focused on differences.

In other words, they looked at their victims, and they thought,

換句話說，他們會看受害者，並想著：

「我與他沒有共同之處。

"I share nothing in common with that person.

They are totally different than me."

他跟我完全不一樣。」

Again, this might sound like a really simple concept,

這聽起來像是一個很簡單的概念，

但是它的背後其實有一些有趣的科學。

but there's some fascinating science behind why this works.

Say I show you guys videos of different-colored hands

假設我給你們看一個影片， 影片中會秀出不同顏色的手，

and sharp pins being driven into these different-colored hands,

並用很尖的針刺穿這些手。

OK?

好嗎？

If you're white,

如果你是白人，

the chances are you will experience the most sympathetic activation,

當你看到那個白人的手掌被刺穿，

你就會展現最強的交感神經啟動反應，

or the most pain,

when you see a pin going into the white hand.

意思就是會覺得那個手最痛。

如果你是拉丁美洲人、 阿拉伯人、黑人，

If you are Latin American, Arab, Black,

you will probably experience the most sympathetic activation

你就會在看到與你 膚色相同的手被針穿過時，

watching a pin going into the hand that looks most like yours.

有同樣的反應。

The good news is, that's not biologically fixed.

好消息是，這並不是天生的，

That is learned behavior.

這是個學習而得的行為。

Which means the more we spend time with other ethnic communities

這意味著，我們與其他種族族群 相處的時間越多，

and the more we see them as similar to us and part of our team,

我們就越會覺得他們與我們相似、

和我們是同隊的，

the more we feel their pain.

我們就會更加感受到他們的痛苦。

The last habit that I'm going to talk about

我要聊的最後一個習慣是

is when attackers prepared themselves to go out and do one of these events,

當攻擊者準備出門做這些事情時，

they focused on certain emotional cues.

他們會將注意力集中在 某些情緒暗示上。

For months, they geared themselves up by focusing on anger cues, for instance.

在之前的幾個月裡，

他們專注於我們讓他們生氣的事， 以便一心一意地和我們對抗。

I bring this up because it's really popular right now.

我之所以提到這個 是因為現在這個很紅。

If you read blogs or the news,

如果你讀部落格或新聞，

you see talk of two concepts from laboratory science:

您會看到來自實驗室科學 關於兩個概念的討論：

amygdala hijacking and emotional hijacking.

杏仁核劫持和情感劫持。

Now, amygdala hijacking:

杏仁核劫持的概念，舉例來說，

it's the concept that I show you a cue -- say, a gun --

我向您顯示一個暗示 ——例如：槍支——

and your brain reacts with an automatic threat response

負責「戰或逃」反應的杏仁核

就會讓你做出受到威脅時的反應。

to that cue.

Emotional hijacking -- it's a very similar concept.

情感劫持也是類似的概念；

It's the idea that I show you an anger cue, for instance,

我對你做一個引起生氣反應的暗示，

你的大腦就會讓你不自主地

and your brain will react with an automatic anger response

做出生氣的反應。

to that cue.

I think women usually get this more than men. (Laughs)

我想女性在這方面 比男性更有經驗。（笑）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That kind of a hijacking narrative grabs our attention.

那種關於劫持的敘述 引起了我們的注意。

單是「劫持」這個詞 就可以引起我們的注意。

Just the word "hijacking" grabs our attention.

The thing is,

實話說，

most of the time, that's not really how cues work in real life.

大多時候，這並不是那些暗示 在現實生活中的運作方式。

If you study history,

如果你深入了解歷史，

what you find is that we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of cues

你會發現我們每天都被

成千上萬的暗示轟炸，

every day.

And so what we do is we learn to filter.

所以我們學會了過濾暗示。

We ignore some cues,

我們會忽略某些暗示，

we pay attention to other cues.

並專注在其他暗示上。

這對政治暴力很重要，

For political violence, this becomes really important,

because what it meant is that attackers usually didn't just see an anger cue

因為那說明了，攻擊者通常都不會

因為激發他憤怒的暗示 而突然作出行動。

and suddenly snap.

Instead,

事實是，政治家和社會運動家

politicians, social activists spent weeks, months, years

花了數週、數月、數年的時間 製造憤怒的暗示，

flooding the environment with anger cues, for instance,

讓我們的社會被這些暗示淹沒。

and attackers,

攻擊者專注在那些暗示上，

they paid attention to those cues,

they trusted those cues,

他們相信那些暗示，

they focused on them,

他們專注在那些暗示上，

they even memorized those cues.

他們甚至把那些暗示背下 來。

All of this just really goes to show how important it is to study history.

這些都告訴我們探究歷史的重要性。

It's one thing to see how cues operate in a laboratory setting.

在實驗環境中觀察 暗示如何運作是一回事。

And those laboratory experiments are incredibly important.

這些實驗其實非常重要。

They give us a lot of new data about how our bodies work.

他們提供我們很多關於 身體運作方式的數據。

But it's also very important to see how those cues operate in real life.

但是，了解這些暗示 如何在現實生活中運作也很重要。

So what does all this tell us about political violence?

那麼，這一切會告訴我們 政治暴力的什麼事？

Political violence is not culturally endemic.

政治暴力並不是某些文化特有的。

It is not an automatic, predetermined response to environmental stimuli.

這不是對環境刺激 所做的自動、本能反應。

We produce it.

這些反應是我們自己產生的，

Our everyday habits produce it.

我們的日常習慣造成的。

Let's go back, actually, to those two women that I mentioned at the start.

讓我們回到我一開始 提到的那兩個女人。

The first woman had been paying attention to those outrage campaigns,

第一個女人一直在關注 那些煽動暴力的宣傳，

so she took a gun

因此她拿著槍，

and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

朝著一名在檢查站的軍人前進。

But in that moment, something really interesting happened.

但就在那時，發生了一些有趣的事情。

She looked at that soldier,

她看著那個軍人，

and she thought to herself,

想說：

"He's the same age as me.

「他跟我年紀相仿。

He looks like me."

他看起來就像我。」

And she put down the gun, and she walked away.

就只因為他們有一點相似，

Just from that little bit of similarity.

所以她把槍放下，離開了。

第二個女孩有完全不一樣的結果。

The second girl had a totally different outcome.

She also listened to the outrage campaigns,

她也有關注煽動暴力的宣傳，

but she surrounded herself with individuals

但是她周圍的人

都支持暴力，

who were supportive of violence,

with peers who supported her violence.

朋友也都支持她的暴力行為。

She enclosed herself in an information bubble.

她把自己包在洗腦泡泡裡。

She focused on certain emotional cues for months.

幾個月以來她一直專注於情緒暗示上。

She taught herself to bypass certain cultural inhibitions against violence.

她學到方法來避開 文化中對暴力的限制。

她預演了她的計畫，

She practiced her plan,

she taught herself new habits,

她自學了新的習慣。

時間到的時候， 她將炸彈帶到了咖啡廳，

and when the time came, she took her bomb to the café,

and she followed through with that attack.

依照計畫執行暴力攻擊。

This was not impulse.

這並不是一種衝動，

This was learning.

這是一種學習。

Polarization in our society is not impulse,

我們社會的兩極分化不是衝動，

it's learning.

而是學習。

Every day we are teaching ourselves:

我們每天都在自學：

the news we click on,

我們所點擊的新聞，

the emotions that we focus on,

我們關注的情緒，

the thoughts that we entertain about the red team or the blue team.

我們對紅隊或藍隊的想法。

All of this contributes to learning,

無論我們是否有意識到，

whether we realize it or not.

這些都會幫助我們學習。

The good news

好消息是，

is that while the individuals I study already made their decisions,

即使我研究的人都已經做了決定，

we can still change our trajectory.

我們仍然可以改變我們的軌道。

We might never make the decisions that they made,

我們可能永遠都不會做出 他們所做出的決定，

but we can stop contributing to violent ecologies.

但是我們可以不再激發暴力生態。

We can get out of whatever news bubble we're in,

我們可以擺脫那些洗腦泡泡，

可以更加關注自己的情緒暗示

we can be more mindful about the emotional cues

that we focus on,

the outrage bait that we click on.

和我們點擊的憤怒誘餌。

But most importantly,

但是最重要的是，

we can stop seeing each other as just members of the red team

我們能夠不以紅隊或藍隊的方式

or the blue team.

看待對方。

Because whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist,

因為無論我們是基督徒、穆斯林、 猶太人、無神論者、

Democrat or Republican,

民主黨，還是共和黨，

we're human.

我們是人類。

We're human beings.

我們都是人類。

And we often share really similar habits.

而且我們經常會有相似的習慣。

We have differences.

我們有不同之處。

這些差異是美麗的，

Those differences are beautiful,

and those differences are very important.

而且這些差異非常重要。

But our future depends on us being able to find common ground

但是我們的未來取決於我們

能夠找到和對方共同點的能力。

with the other side.

And that's why it is so, so important

因此，最最重要的是，

for us to retrain our brains

我們必須重新訓練大腦

and stop contributing to violent ecologies.

並停止促成暴力生態。

謝謝。

Thank you.

(Applause)

（掌聲）