How shocking events can spark positive change | Naomi Klein

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Yanyan Hong

There's a question I've been puzzling over and writing about

有個問題我一直在傷腦筋， 也一直在寫相關書籍，

for pretty much all of my adult life.

我成年後的人生幾乎都投入在此。

Why do some large-scale crises

為什麼有一些大規模的危機

jolt us awake and inspire us to change and evolve

會打醒我們 並鼓舞我們去改變和成長，

while others might jolt us a bit,

但其他的則只稍微 讓我們震驚了一下，

but then it's back to sleep?

然後一切就回復平靜了？

Now, the kind of shocks I'm talking about are big --

我在談的震驚事件，是大型的──

a cataclysmic market crash, rising fascism,

災難性的市場崩壞、 法西斯主義重新興起、

an industrial accident that poisons on a massive scale.

造成大規模毒害的工業意外。

Now, events like this can act like a collective alarm bell.

像這樣的事件， 可能會有集體警鈴的功用。

Suddenly, we see a threat, we get organized.

突然間，我們遇到威脅， 我們就會組織起來。

We discover strength and resolve that was previously unimaginable.

我們會發現先前 無法想像的力量和決心。

It's as if we're no longer walking, but leaping.

彷彿我們不再用走的，而是用跳的。

Except, our collective alarm seems to be busted.

不過，我們的集體警鈴似乎壞掉了。

Faced with a crisis, we often fall apart, regress

面對危機時，我們通常 會四分五裂、會向後退，

and that becomes a window for antidemocratic forces

那會為反民主勢力打開一扇窗，

to push societies backwards, to become more unequal and more unstable.

讓它們把社會向後推， 變得更不平等、更不穩定。

Ten years ago, I wrote about this backwards process

十年前，我寫了關於 這種倒退過程的書，

and I called it the "Shock Doctrine."

我把書名取為《震撼主義》。

So what determines which road we navigate through crisis?

我們會走哪條路來通過危機， 是由什麼決定的？

Whether we grow up fast and find those strengths

不論我們是否快速成長 並找到那些力量，

or whether we get knocked back.

或不論我們是否被打回來。

And I'd say this is a pressing question these days.

我會說這是近期一個很迫切的問題。

Because things are pretty shocking out there.

因為，外頭的狀況是挺震撼的。

Record-breaking storms, drowning cities,

破記錄的暴風、被淹沒的城市、

record-breaking fires threatening to devour them,

破記錄的大火威脅要將城市吞噬，

thousands of migrants disappearing beneath the waves.

數以千計的移民者消失在大浪下。

And openly supremacist movements rising,

公開的種族優越運動興起，

in many of our countries there are torches in the streets.

許多國家都在發生， 甚至在街頭出現火炬。

And now there's no shortage of people who are sounding the alarm.

一直都有人在響起警鈴。

But as a society, I don't think we can honestly say

但我們這個社會， 我認為我們無法老實說

that we're responding with anything like the urgency

我們的反應是帶著迫切性的，

that these overlapping crises demand from us.

但這些部分重疊的危機 卻很需要我們的迫切反應。

And yet, we know from history

然而，我們從歷史得知，

that it is possible for crisis to catalyze a kind of evolutionary leap.

危機有可能催化一種進化的躍進。

And one of the most striking examples of this progressive power of crisis

若要說明危機的革新力量， 最突出的例子之一

is the Great Crash of 1929.

就是 1929 年的華爾街股災。

There was the shock of the sudden market collapse

市場突然崩盤帶來震撼，

followed by all of the aftershocks,

接著便是所有的餘震，

the millions who lost everything thrown onto breadlines.

數百萬人失去一切， 被丟到等待救濟食物的隊伍中。

And this was taken by many as a message that the system itself was broken.

許多人把這件事當作是個訊息： 體制本身就已經損壞。

And many people listened and they leapt into action.

說多人聽進去了， 且他們跳出來採取行動。

In the United States and elsewhere, governments began to weave a safety net

在美國和其他地方， 政府開始編織一張安全網，

so that the next time there was a crash

這麼一來，下次再發生崩盤，

there would be programs like social security to catch people.

會有像社會保障之類的計畫 來接住摔落的人。

There were huge job-creating public investments

有大量能創造就業機會的公共投資，

in housing, electrification and transit.

投入住房供給、電氣化，以及運輸。

And there was a wave of aggressive regulation

還有一波積極強硬的規制，

to reign in the banks.

在銀行中都可見到。

Now, these reforms were far from perfect.

這些改革離完美還很遙遠。

In the US, African American workers, immigrants and women

在美國，非裔美國工人、 移民者以及女性

were largely excluded.

幾乎都被排除在外。

But the Depression period,

但蕭條時期，

along with the transformation of allied nations and economies

加上在二次大戰時努力造成的

結盟國家與經濟體的轉變，

during the World War II effort,

show us that it is possible for complex societies

讓我們看見，複雜的社會是有可能

to rapidly transform themselves in the face of a collective threat.

在面臨集體威脅時 快速地轉變它們自己。

Now, when we tell this story of the 1929 Crash,

當我們在訴說 1929 年 股災的故事時，

that's usually the formula that it follows --

通常都會循著一條公式──

that there was a shock and it induced a wake-up call

先有一個震撼事件發生， 它會導致一個警訊，

and that produced a leap to a safer place.

那就會產生一次躍進， 進到一個更安全的地方。

Now, if that's really what it took,

如果真的只要這樣就可以了，

then why isn't it working anymore?

為什麼它不再有用了？

Why do today's non-stop shocks --

為什麼現今不停歇地出現震撼事件──

why don't they spur us into action?

為什麼它們不會鞭策我們採取行動？

Why don't they produce leaps?

為什麼它們不會產生躍進？

Especially when it comes to climate change.

特別是氣候變遷這個議題。

So I want to talk to you today

所以，今天我想和各位談的，

about what I think is a much more complete recipe for deep transformation

是我認為更完整的訣竅， 由震撼事件來催化

catalyzed by shocking events.

深刻轉變的訣竅。

And I'm going to focus on two key ingredients

我會把焦點放在兩個主要的要素上，

that usually get left out of the history books.

這兩個要素通常 都會被史書給遺漏掉。

One has to do with imagination, the other with organization.

第一個要素和想像有關， 另一個則和組織有關。

Because it's in the interplay between the two

因為革命性的力量就位在

where revolutionary power lies.

這兩者的相互影響中。

So let's start with imagination.

讓我們從想像開始。

The victories of the New Deal didn't happen just because suddenly

羅斯福新政之所以能成功， 並不是因為突然間

everybody understood the brutalities of laissez-faire.

所有人都了解了放任政策的殘酷。

This was a time, let's remember, of tremendous ideological ferment,

回想一下，那是個 意識形態騷動很嚴重的時期，

when many different ideas about how to organize societies

許多關於如何組織社會的不同構想

did battle with one another in the public square.

都在公開廣場上彼此對打。

A time when humanity dared to dream big

那個時期，針對不同的未來，

about different kinds of futures,

人類敢於大膽做夢，

many of them organized along radically egalitarian lines.

其中有許多本質上是以 平等主義的方式組織而成的。

Now, not all of these ideas were good

這些構想並非全都是好的，

but this was an era of explosive imagining.

但這個時代的確是 想像力爆發的時代。

This meant that the movements demanding change

這意味著，訴求改變的那些運動

knew what they were against -- crushing poverty, widening inequality --

知道它們在對抗的是什麼── 壓倒性的貧窮、越來越廣的不公平──

but just as important, they knew what they were for.

但同樣重要的是， 它們也知道目的是為了什麼。

They had their "no" and they had their "yes," too.

它們有它們的「不行」， 也有它們的「可以」。

They also had very different models of political organization

至於它們的政治組織模型

也和我們現今的非常不同。

than we do today.

For decades, social and labor movements

數十年來，社會和勞工運動

had been building up their membership bases,

一直在擴大它們的成員數，

linking their causes together and increasing their strength.

將它們的理想連結在一起增加力量。

Which meant that by the time the Crash happened,

這就表示，到了股災發生的時候，

there was already a movement that was large and broad enough

已經有一個夠大、夠廣的運動，

to, for instance, stage strikes that didn't just shut down factories,

可以比如，籌劃罷工， 且規模大到不只是讓工廠停擺，

but shut down entire cities.

還能讓整個城市都停擺。

The big policy wins of the New Deal were actually offered as compromises.

羅斯福新政在政策上的大勝利， 其實是提供出來的妥協。

Because the alternative seemed to be revolution.

因為替代方案似乎就是革命了。

So, let's adjust that equation from earlier.

讓我們調整先前提出的公式。

A shocking event plus utopian imagination

震撼事件＋烏托邦想像＋

plus movement muscle,

運動力量，

that's how we get a real leap.

這樣我們就能得到真正的躍進。

So how does our present moment measure up?

我們目前的狀況符合這個標準嗎？

We are living, once again, at a time of extraordinary political engagements.

我們所處的時代也是個 政治參與度很驚人的時代。

Politics is a mass obsession.

大眾對政治著迷。

Progressive movements are growing and resisting with tremendous courage.

革新運動在成長， 帶著極大的勇氣在抵抗。

And yet, we know from history that "no" is not enough.

然而，我們從歷史知道， 「不行」是不夠的。

Now, there are some "yeses" out there that are emerging.

確實在外頭有一些「可以」正在浮現。

And they're actually getting a lot bolder quickly.

它們其實以很快的速度 在變得更無畏。

Where climate activists used to talk about changing light bulbs,

以前氣候激進分子談的是換電燈泡，

now we're pushing for 100 percent of our energy

現在我們奮力追求的是 要讓我們的能源

to come from the sun, wind and waves,

100% 來自太陽能、風力和海水，

and to do it fast.

且要盡快實現。

Movements catalyzed by police violence against black bodies

警察對黑人的暴力行為 所催化的時刻

are calling for an end to militarized police, mass incarceration

在號召要終止警察的 軍事化、大規模監禁，

and even for reparations for slavery.

甚至呼籲對奴隸制進行賠償。

Students are not just opposing tuition increases,

學生不只是反對學費上漲，

but from Chile to Canada to the UK,

從智利到加拿大，再到英國，

they are calling for free tuition and debt cancellation.

他們還訴求免學費和免除還款。

And yet, this still doesn't add up

然而，這仍然不符合

to the kind of holistic and universalist vision

我們先人有的那種遠景，

希望有個不同世界的整體普救遠景。

of a different world than our predecessors had.

So why is that?

為什麼會這樣？

Well, very often we think about political change

現在，通常當我們思考政治改變時，

in defined compartments these days.

是用定義好的區隔分類來思考的。

Environment in one box, inequality in another,

一類是環境，另一類是不公平，

racial and gender justice in a couple of other boxes,

種族與性別正義則是屬於其他幾類，

education over here, health over there.

教育在這裡，健康在那裡。

And within each compartment,

在每一個分類當中，

there are thousands upon thousands of different groups and NGOs,

有成千上萬個不同的 團體和非政府組織，

each competing with one another for credit, name recognition

彼此競爭，爭功勞、知名度，

and of course, resources.

當然也爭資源。

In other words, we act a lot like corporate brands.

換言之，我們的行為 和企業品牌很像。

Now, this is often referred to as the problem of silos.

通常，這被稱為是穀倉問題。 （註：過度分工成獨立小團體）

Now, silos are understandable.

穀倉是可以理解的。

They carve up our complex world into manageable chunks.

穀倉把我們的複雜世界 劃分成區塊，比較能處理得來。

They help us feel less overwhelmed.

穀倉讓我們不會覺得那麼無法招架。

But in the process, they also train our brains to tune out

但在過程中，穀倉同時 也訓練我們的大腦，

when somebody else's issue comes up

在聽到其他人的問題時、

聽到他們的問題需要我們的 協助和支援時，要充耳不聞。

and when somebody else's issue needs our help and support.

And they also keep us from seeing glaring connections between our issues.

穀倉也讓我們無法看見 我們的問題之間有著明顯的連結。

So for instance, the people fighting poverty and inequality

比如，對抗貧窮和不公平的人，

rarely talk about climate change.

他們很少會談氣候變遷。

Even though we see time and again

即使我們一而再、再而三地看到，

that it's the poorest of people

在極端氣候威脅下，

who are the most vulnerable to extreme weather.

最容易受傷的人是最貧窮的人。

The climate change people rarely talk about war and occupation.

氣候變遷的人很少會談戰爭和職業。

Even though we know that the thirst for fossil fuels

即使我們知道對於化石燃料的渴望

has been a major driver of conflict.

一直都是主要的戰爭衝突起因。

The environmental movement has gotten better at pointing out

環境運動也開始會點出

that the nations that are getting hit hardest by climate change

受到氣候變遷影響最大的國家

are populated overwhelmingly by black and brown people.

是擁有大量黑色和棕色人種的國家。

But when black lives are treated as disposable

但當黑人的生命在監獄、學校

in prisons, in schools and on the streets,

和街頭可被捨棄，

these connections are too rarely made.

這些幾乎不被連結起來。

The walls between our silos

穀倉之間有牆壁隔開，

also means that our solutions, when they emerge,

也就表示當解決方案出現時，

are also disconnected from each other.

也彼此互不連結。

So progressives now have this long list of demands that I was mentioning earlier,

所以，進步分子現在有張很長的 需求清單，我剛剛已經提過，

those "yeses."

就是那些「可以」。

But what we're still missing

但對於我們在努力爭取的世界，

is that coherent picture of the world we're fighting for.

我們仍然缺少一致相連的整體全景。

What it looks like, what it feels like, and most of all, what its core values are.

它看起來、感覺起來是什麼樣子？ 更重要的，它的核心價值是什麼？

And that really matters.

那真的很要緊。

Because when large-scale crises hit us

因為當我們遇到大規模危機，

and we are confronted with the need to leap somewhere safer,

需要跳躍到更安全的地方時，

there isn't any agreement on what that place is.

對於那個地方是哪裡， 卻無法取得一致意見。

And leaping without a destination

而沒有目的就跳躍，

looks a lot like jumping up and down.

看起來很像就只是上下跳而已。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Fortunately, there are all kinds of conversations and experiments going on

幸運的是，目前還是有各種 正在進行中的對話和實驗，

to try to overcome these divisions that are holding us back.

在試圖克服這些 讓我們無法向前行的分隔。

And I want to finish by talking about one of them.

我想談其中一種， 當作這場演說的結尾。

A couple of years ago, a group of us in Canada

幾年前，在加拿大，我們有一群人

decided that we were hitting the limits

認定我們在各式各樣的穀倉中，

of what we could accomplish in our various silos.

成就都已經達到了能達到的極限。

So we locked ourselves in a room for two days,

所以我們把自己 鎖在一間房間中兩天，

and we tried to figure out what bound us together.

我們試圖想出有什麼辦法 可以讓我們團結在一起。

In that room were people who rarely get face to face.

在那間房間中的人， 是很少面對面的人。

There were indigenous elders with hipsters working on transit.

有原住民長老和消息靈通的人 一起努力解決運輸問題。

There was the head of Greenpeace

有綠色和平的領導人

with a union leader representing oil workers and loggers.

和石油工人與伐木工人的工會代表。

There were faith leaders and feminist icons and many more.

有宗教領袖及女性主義 代表人物，及許多其他的。

And we gave ourselves a pretty ambitious assignment:

我們給自己訂了一個 很有野心的任務：

agreeing on a short statement describing the world after we win.

取得一致的意見，用一段簡短陳述 來描述我們獲勝之後的世界。

The world after we've already made the transition to a clean economy

在我們已經轉換到乾淨經濟

並讓社會更公平之後的世界。

and a much fairer society.

In other words,

也就是說，

instead of trying to scare people about what will happen if we don't act,

不再用「若我們不採取行動會怎樣」 來恐嚇人們了，

we decided to try to inspire them with what could happen if we did act.

我們決定要試著用 「若我們採取行動會怎樣」來鼓舞他們。

Sensible people are always telling us

理性的人總是會告訴我們，

that change needs to come in small increments.

改變要能成功，必須要一點一點改。

That politics is the art of the possible

政治是可能性的藝術，

and that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

我們不能讓「完美」成為「好」的敵人。

Well, we rejected all of that.

我們摒棄那一切。

We wrote a manifesto, and we called it "The Leap."

我們寫了一份宣言， 我們叫它「躍進」。

I have to tell you that agreeing on our common "yes"

我得告訴各位，要對於我們 共同的「可以」取得共識，

across such diversity of experiences

在大家的經驗都很不一樣的情況下，

and against a backdrop of a lot of painful history

且都有許多痛苦往事的背景之下，

was not easy work.

真的很不容易。

But it was also pretty thrilling.

但它也非常令人興奮。

Because as soon as we gave ourselves permission to dream,

因為一旦我們允許我們自己去夢想，

those threads connecting much of our work became self-evident.

將我們的努力結合起來的 連結線就會不證自明。

We realized, for instance,

比如，我們知道

that the bottomless quest for profits

對於利益的無窮盡追求

that is forcing so many people to work more than 50 hours a week,

迫使許多人必須要 每週工作超過五十小時，

without security,

沒有保障，

and that is fueling this epidemic of despair

助長絕望的傳播。

is the same quest for bottomless profits and endless growth

而我們的生態危機的核心，

正是這種對於利益 與成長的無窮盡追求，

that is at the heart of our ecological crisis

and is destabilizing our planet.

它是地球動盪的元兇。

It also became clear what we need to do.

我們需要做什麼？答案變得很清楚。

We need to create a culture of care-taking.

我們需要創造一種照顧的文化。

In which no one and nowhere is thrown away.

在這種文化中，沒有任何人、 任何地方會被拋棄。

In which the inherent value of all people and every ecosystem is foundational.

這種文化中的基礎，是所有人 及每個生態系統的固有價值。

所以我們提出了 這個屬於人民的平台，

So we came up with this people's platform,

and don't worry, I'm not going to read the whole thing to you out loud --

別擔心，我不會把全部內容 都大聲讀給各位聽──

if you're interested, you can read it at theleap.org.

如果你有興趣，可以到 theleap.org 去看全文。

But I will give you a taste of what we came up with.

但我會讓各位淺嚐一下， 了解我們提出的是什麼。

So we call for that 100 percent renewable economy in a hurry,

我們訴求 100% 的可再生經濟， 且要盡快達成，

but we went further.

我們還再進了一步。

Calls for new kinds of trade deals,

我們也訴求要有新的貿易協定、

a robust debate on a guaranteed annual income,

針對年收入保障做健全的辯論、

full rights for immigrant workers,

移民工人要有所有的權利、

getting corporate money out of politics,

不要再讓企業的錢進入政治、

free universal day care, electoral reform and more.

提供免費日間托兒給所有人、 選舉改革，以及其他的。

What we discovered is that a great many of us

我們發現很多人希望能得到允許，

are looking for permission to act less like brands and more like movements.

以更像運動而不是品牌的方式 來採取行動。

Because movements don't care about credit.

因為運動不在意功勞歸誰。

They want good ideas to spread far and wide.

運動要的是把好想法 傳播出去，越廣越好。

What I love about The Leap

我很喜歡「躍進」的一點，

is that it rejects the idea that there is this hierarchy of crisis,

就是它不認為危機要有等級制度，

and it doesn't ask anyone to prioritize one struggle over another

它不會要求任何人 優先處理某項難題，

or wait their turn.

或等著輪到他們。

And though it was birthed in Canada,

雖然它是在加拿大誕生，

we've discovered that it travels well.

但我們發現它也推廣世界。

Since we launched, The Leap has been picked up around the world

我們推出「躍進」之後， 世界各地都注意到了它，

with similar platforms,

推出類似的平台，

being written from Nunavut to Australia,

從努納福特地區到澳洲，

to Norway to the UK and the US,

到挪威，到英國以及美國，

where it's gaining a lot of traction in cities like Los Angeles,

在像洛杉磯這類城市中 產生很大的牽引力，

where it's being localized.

因為它在那裡已被地區化。

And also in rural communities that are traditionally very conservative,

此外，它也進到一些傳統上 相當保守的鄉村社區，

but where politics is failing the vast majority of people.

因為在那些地方， 政治讓大多數的人失望。

Here's what I've learned from studying shocks and disasters for two decades.

在我研究震撼事件和災難的 二十年裏，從中學到的是，

Crises test us.

危機在考驗我們。

We either fall apart or we grow up fast.

我們要不四分五裂，要不快速成長。

Finding new reserves of strength and capacity that we never knew we had.

發現我們從來不知道自己 擁有那麼多力量和能力，

The shocking events that fill us with dread today

現今，讓我們充滿恐懼的震撼事件

can transform us, and they can transform the world for the better.

能夠轉變我們， 也能把世界轉變得更好。

But first we need to picture the world that we're fighting for.

但首先，我們得要先想像出 我們努力想打造的世界。

And we have to dream it up together.

我們得一起把它構想出來。

Right now, every alarm in our house is going off simultaneously.

現在，我們房子裡的 各種警報同時一起響起。

It's time to listen.

該是傾聽的時候了。

It's time to leap.

該是躍進的時候了。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）