3 ways to practice civility | Steven Petrow

譯者: Val Zhang 審譯者: Helen Chang

I want to start by telling you two things about myself

我想先分享兩件關於我的事，

before I get into the full talk.

在我進入完整演說之前。

And the first is that I've been writing about manners and civility

第一，我寫關於 禮儀和公民素養的文章，

for more than 20 years,

超過二十年，

as a book author and as a magazine columnist.

我是作家也寫雜誌專欄。

The second is,

第二，

my friends know to be very wary of inviting me over for dinner

我的朋友都知道，若要邀請我 去吃晚餐，就得要非常謹慎，

because any faux pas that happens at the table

因為飯桌上若有 任何失禮的狀況發生，

is likely to wind up in print.

很可能會成為我的寫作題材。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So, I'm watching, I can see back there and I can see through the portals, too.

所以，我一直在觀察， 我看得到後排座位也看得到門口。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So, speaking of dinner parties,

說到晚宴，

I want to take you back to 2015 and a dinner party that I went to.

我想要帶大家回到 2015 年， 我參加的一場晚宴。

To place this in time,

這件事情的時間點，

this was when Caitlyn Jenner was first coming out,

是在凱特琳·詹納剛出櫃時，

shedding her identity as a Kardashian

擺脫她身為卡戴珊家族成員的身分，

and moving into her life as a transgender activist.

開始跨性別運動參與者的人生。

I wrote a column in People magazine at the time,

當時我曾在《時人》 雜誌中寫一篇專欄，

talking about the importance of names

論述名字的重要性，

and how names are our identity.

以及名字代表我們的身份認同。

And that to misuse them or not to use them erases us in a certain way.

誤用或不去使用某些名字， 會以某種方式抹滅了我們。

And especially with Caitlyn Jenner,

特別是凱特琳·詹納的例子，

I talked about Caitlyn, but also the use of her pronouns.

我談到凱特琳，也談到 怎麼使用她的代名詞。

Her pronouns.

她的代名詞。

So I'm at this dinner -- delicious, wonderful, fun --

我在晚宴上，一切原本 很美味、很美好、很有趣——

when my host goes on a rant about Caitlyn Jenner.

晚宴的主人轉而沒完沒了地 怒罵凱特琳·詹納。

And she is saying that it is disrespectful for Caitlyn Jenner

她說，凱特琳·詹納 强迫她使用新的名字

to force her to use a new name and to use these new pronouns.

和代名詞（去稱呼「凱」）， 是很不尊重人的。

She's not buying it,

她不能接受，

and I'm listening, and because I do meditation,

而我聽著，因為我會做冥想，

I took my sacred pause before I responded.

在我回應之前，我刻意暫停了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And I reminded her that when she got married,

我提醒她，當她結婚時，

she changed her name,

她改了她的名字，

and that she took the name of her husband.

她用了夫姓。

And that's the name all of us now use.

我們現在都也用她的夫姓稱呼她。

We don't use it just because it's her legal name,

我們用這個名字並不僅 因那是她的正式姓氏，

but we use it because it's respectful.

也是因為我們尊重她。

Ditto for Miss Jenner.

對詹納也是一樣。

She didn't buy it and we didn't speak for years.

她不接受，我們很多年 都沒有再說話。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So ...

像這樣…

I am known as the Civilist.

我被稱為文明主義者。

And it's probably a word that you're not that familiar with.

你們可能不太熟悉這個詞。

It's not in common parlance

它不是個常見用語，

and it comes from the Latin and the French,

它來自拉丁文和法文，

and it means an individual who tries to live by a moral code,

意指一個人試圖遵守道德準則，

who is striving to be a good citizen.

且努力要成為好公民。

The word "civility" is derived from that,

「公民素養」這個詞就是源自於它，

and the original definition of civility

公民素養的原始定義

is citizens willing to give of themselves for the good of the city,

是公民願意奉獻自己 以謀求城市的利益，

for the good of the commonwealth, for the larger good.

全體公民的、大我的利益。

So, in this talk,

所以，在這場演說中，

you're going to learn three new ways to be civil, I hope,

我希望，你們將會學到 三種更具有公民素養的方法，

and it will be according to the original definition of civility.

而背後用到的定義 是公民素養的原始定義。

My first problem is:

我的第一個問題是：

civility is an obsolete word.

公民素養是個過時的詞。

My second problem is:

我的第二個問題是：

civility has become a dirty word in this country.

在這個國家，公民素養已經 變成了一個髒字。

And that is whether you lean right or whether you lean left.

不論你在政治上傾左或右。

And in part, that's because modern usage equates civility with decorum,

部分是因為， 現今將公民素養等同於禮儀，

with formal politeness, formal behavior.

等同於正式的禮貌、正式的行為。

We've gotten away from the idea of citizenship.

但我們離其中的公民意識 概念越來越遠了。

So, let me start by talking a little bit about my friends on the right,

所以，讓我先來談談右傾的朋友們，

who have conflated civility with what they call political correctness.

把公民素養和他們所謂的 政治正確性混淆了。

And to them, callouts for civility

對他們而言，呼籲公民素養，

are really very much like what George Orwell wrote in "1984" --

很像喬治·歐威爾 在《1984》中寫的——

he called it "newspeak."

他稱之為「新語」。

And this was an attempt to change the way we talk

意思是：透過強行改變 我們使用的言詞，

by forcibly changing the language that we use.

來嘗試改變我們說話的方式。

To change our ideas by changing the meaning of words.

透過改變言詞的意思， 來改變我們的想法。

And I think my dinner host might have had some of that

我認為，我的晚宴主人

可能多少因此感覺不安。

rattling around there.

And I first personally understood, though,

不過，我第一次親身了解到

the right's problem with civility

右派對於公民素養的不滿，

when I wrote a column about then-candidate Donald Trump.

是在我有篇專欄談到 當時還是候選人的川普。

And he had just said

那時他說，

he did not have time for total political correctness,

他沒有時間做到完全的政治正確，

and he did not believe the country did either.

他認為這個國家也是如此。

And I took that to heart, it was very --

我認真看待那句話，它非常——

The audience was very engaged about that online, as you can imagine.

應該不難想像， 網民對此熱烈地議論。

There was a thousand responses, and this one stood out to me

有上千則回應，其中 這段引起我的注意，

because it was representative:

因為它很有代表性：

"Political correctness is a pathological system

「政治正確是一種病態的體制，

that lets liberals dominate a conversation,

它讓自由主義者能夠主導對談，

label, demonize and shout down the opposition."

將對立的人貼上標籤、妖魔化， 並淹沒他們的聲音。」

So I think, to the right, civility translates into censure.

所以，我心想，對右派而言， 公民素養被視為譴責。

So that's the right.

這是右派的部分。

Now, my friends on the left also have a problem with it.

至於我的左派朋友， 也對公民素養有所不滿。

And for example, there have been those

比如，有一些人，

who have harassed Trump administration officials

他們曾騷擾恐嚇那些 支持總統在邊境建圍牆的

who support the President's border wall.

川普政府官員們。

They've been called out as rude, they've been called out as nasty,

他們曾經被罵無禮、 他們曾經被罵下流、

他們曾經被罵得更難聽。

they've been called out as worse.

And after one such incident last year,

在去年的一個衝突後，

even the Washington Post --

就連《華盛頓郵報》——

you know, left-leaning Washington Post --

你們知道的，左傾的 《華盛頓郵報》——

wrote an editorial and sided with decorum.

也寫了一篇社論， 站在禮儀的那一邊。

And they argued that officials should be allowed to dine in peace.

他們主張：應該要讓官員好好地用餐。

Hm.

嗯。

"You know, the wall is the real incivility here.

「你們知道，築牆才真是的不文明。

The tear-gassing of kids, the separation of families."

孩子被催淚瓦斯攻擊、 家庭被強行地拆散。」

That's what the protestors say.

那是抗爭者的說法。

And imagine if we had sided, in this country,

想像一下這個國家，若在歷史上

with decorum and courtesy throughout our history.

我們都選擇站在 守規矩和合禮儀的那一邊。

You know, I think about the suffragettes.

我想到婦女參政運動者。

They marched, they picketed.

他們遊行、他們在外抗議、

They were chastised, they were arrested

他們被譴責、他們被逮捕，

for pursuing the vote for women in the 1920s.

只因為他們在二零年代 追求女性投票權。

You know, I also think about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.,

我也想到馬丁 · 路德 · 金恩牧師，

the father of American nonviolent civil disobedience.

美國非暴力公民不服從運動之父。

He was labeled as uncivil in his attempt to promote racial and economic justice.

當他試圖推動種族和經濟正義時， 他也被貼上了「無禮」的標籤。

So I think you get a sense

我想，你們可以了解，

of why civility has become a problem, a dirty word, here.

為什麼在此公民素養會變成 一個問題、一個不雅的字。

Now, does this mean we can't disagree, that we can't speak our minds?

這是否代表我們無法持 反對意見、不能說出心聲？

Absolutely not.

當然不是。

I recently spoke with Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer.

最近我和 嘉露蓮·洛肯斯邁爾博士談過。

She's kind of the guru of civility in this country,

在美國，她就像公民素養的權威，

and the executive director of a body

也是「國家公民論述研究院」的執行長，

called the National Institute for Civil Discourse.

And she told me,

她告訴我：

"Civility does not mean appeasement or avoiding important differences.

「公民素養並不是一味姑息 或迴避重大的歧見。

It means listening and talking about those differences with respect."

它是要傾聽並帶著尊重 來談論那些歧見。」

In a healthy democracy, we need to do that.

在健康的民主環境中， 我們需要那麼做。

And I call that respectful engagement.

我稱之為「以敬相待」。

But civil discourse also needs rules, it needs boundaries.

但公民論述也需要規則，需要界線。

For instance, there's a difference

比如，僅是無禮且貶低人的語言，

between language that is simply rude or demeaning,

和掀起仇恨與不寬容的言論， 是有所不同的。

and speech that invokes hatred and intolerance.

And specifically of groups.

特別是針對某些族群。

And I'm thinking of racial and ethnic groups,

我想到種族和民族性族群，

I'm thinking of the LGBTQ community,

我想到 LGBTQ 族群，

I'm thinking of the disabled.

我想到行動不便者。

We snowflakes call this speech "hate speech."

我們這些容易感到被冒犯的自由派， 稱之為「仇恨言論」。

And hate speech can lead to violence.

仇恨言論有可能導致暴力。

So, to that point, in the fall of 2018,

所以，在 2018 年秋天，

I wrote a column about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

我寫了篇專欄關於 凱瑞斯汀·布萊西·福特教授。

You may remember her,

你們可能記得她，

she was one of the women who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

她是其中一位控訴最高法院 提名人布雷特·卡瓦諾

of sexual assault.

性侵害的人。

And among the responses,

在許多回應當中，

I received this message, a personal message,

我收到這則私人訊息，

which you can see here on the slide.

各位可以在投影片上看到。

It's been largely redacted.

內容已經被大幅地隱藏了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This message was 50 words long. 10 of them were the f-bomb.

這則訊息有五十個字， 其中十個是髒話。

And the Democrats were called out, President Obama was called out,

民主黨黨員被點名， 歐巴馬總統被點名，

and I was referred to in a pretty darn vulgar and coarse way.

我也被以一個 相當侮辱人的方式給提到了。

There was an explicit threat in that message,

那條資訊中有個公開的威脅。

and that is why my editors at The Post sent it to authorities.

因此，我在華盛頓郵報的編輯 把訊息轉給了相關當局。

This came shortly before the pipe bombs were sent to other media outlets,

這是在管炸藥被寄到 其他媒體之前不久發生的，

so everybody was really kind of on guard there.

所以每個人都相當警戒。

And the larger context was, only a few months before,

而更大的事件脈絡是，幾個月前，

five staffers had been killed at a Maryland newspaper.

一間馬里蘭報社的五個員工被殺害。

They had been shot dead by a reader with a grudge.

他們被一名含恨的讀者槍殺了。

"Shut up or else."

「閉嘴，否則要你好看。」

And it was around that same time

大概在同一時間，

that a different reader of mine started stalking me online.

我的另一位讀者開始在網上跟蹤我。

And at first, it was ...

剛開始的時候，情況…

I'll call it light and fluffy.

我會說比較輕微。

It was around this time last year

然後大概是去年此時，

and I still had my Christmas decorations up

我還沒有撤掉耶誕節裝飾。

and he sent me a message saying,

他發給我一則訊息說：

"You should take your Christmas decorations down."

「你應該把你的耶誕裝飾撤下來了。」

And then he noticed that my dog was off leash one day,

有天他注意到我的狗沒拴好繩子，

and then he commented that I had gone to the market.

接著他說我已經出門去市場了。

And then he wrote me one that said,

之後他寫了封訊息給我：

"If anyone were to shoot and kill you,

「如果任何人想要槍殺你，

it would not be a loss at all."

這對任何人來說都不會是損失。」

I wish that were the end of the story.

我希望這就是故事的結尾。

Because then, a few months later, he came to my door, my front door,

因為幾個月之後， 他憤怒地衝到我正門口，

in a rage and tried to break the door down.

試圖破門而入。

I now own mace, a security system

現在我有防身噴霧、保安系統

and a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.

和一根 Louisville Slugger 的棒球棒。

(Sighs)

（歎息）

"Shut up or else."

「閉嘴，否則要你好看。」

So, what's to be done

那麼，我們應該做些什麼

to forestall civility from turning ugly, from turning violent?

才能防止公民素養 變得難看、變得暴力呢？

My first rule is to deescalate language.

我的第一條原則是使用和緩的語言。

And I've stopped using trigger words in print.

在文章裡我不再使用觸發詞了。

And by trigger words, I mean "homophobe," I mean "racist,"

所謂觸發詞，我指像是 「恐同症」、「種族主義者」、

I mean "xenophobe," I mean "sexist."

「排外」 、「性別歧視者」。

All of those words.

這些詞，

They set people off.

它們都會觸發人們的情緒、

They're incendiary

它們具有煽動性、

and they do not allow us to find common ground.

它們讓我們難以找到共識、

They do not allow us to find a common heart.

它們讓我們難以齊心。

And so to this point, when John McCain died in 2018,

當約翰 · 麥肯在 2018 年過世時，

his supporters noted that he never made personal attacks.

他的支持者指出 他從未做過人身攻擊，

But his opponents agreed as well,

而他的反對者們也同意。

and I though that was what was really noteworthy.

我認為這是值得注意的。

He challenged people's policies, he challenged their positions,

他挑戰人們的政策、 他挑戰人們的立場，

but he never made it personal.

但他從來不針對個人。

And so that's the second rule.

而這正是第二條原則。

So the problem of civility is not only an American one.

公民素養並不是美國獨有的問題。

In the Netherlands, there are calls for a civility offensive right now,

在荷蘭，現在有專有名詞 來指稱低落的公民素養，

and as one Dutch philosopher has put it,

如一位荷蘭哲學家所說：

the country has fallen under a spell of "verhuftering."

這個國家已經被下了一個 名為 “verhuftering” 的咒語。

Now, this is not a word that I knew before and I did quite a bit of research.

這個詞我之前不認識， 我做了相當多的功課。

It loosely means bullying and the disappearance of good manners.

它大致上可理解為 霸凌和禮貌的消失。

It actually means much worse than that, but that's what I'm saying here.

它的實際意思還要糟糕許多， 我言僅於此。

When you have a specific word, though, to describe a problem like that,

當你可以找到一個特定的詞 來描述一個問題時，

you know you really have a problem.

你知道你的確有個問題。

And in the United Kingdom, the [2016] Brexit vote ...

而在英國，2016 年的脫歐投票，

you know, has divided a nation even more so.

你們知道，更是分化了一個國家。

And one critic of the breakup called those who favor it --

一名批評英國脫歐的人 把那些支持脫歐的人稱作，

I just love this phrase --

我超愛這個形容：

"the frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain."

「英國驚恐狹隘的蜥蜴腦。」

The frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain.

英國驚恐狹隘的蜥蜴腦。

That's personal.

這樣便是人身攻擊了。

And it makes me miss "Downton Abbey"

這讓我懷念起《唐頓莊園》

and its patina of civility.

和片中客氣的假象。

But therein lies the third rule:

但這便是第三條原則：

don't mistake decorum for civility.

不要錯把禮節當做公民素養。

Even if you have a dowager countess as fabulous as Dame Maggie Smith.

即便有位老伯爵夫人 無懈可擊如瑪姬·史密斯女爵士。

【別當個失敗主義者， 那太中產階級了。】

(Laughter)

[Don't be defeatist. It's so middle class.]

So let me end with one last story.

讓我用最後一個故事收尾。

Not that long ago, I was at a bakery, and they make these amazing scones.

不久前，我在間麵包店， 他們有非常美味的司康。

So, long line -- there are a lot of scones.

排隊的人很多，司康也很多。

And one by one, the scones were disappearing

但是一個接著一個，司康不斷消失。

until there was one woman in between me and that last scone.

到我前面只剩一位女士時， 司康也只剩一個了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Praise the Lord, she said, "I'll have a croissant."

謝天謝地，她說：「我要可頌麵包。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So when it became my turn, I said, "I'll take that scone."

所以等輪到我的時候， 我說：「我要那個司康。」

The guy behind me --

站在我後面的男子，

I'd never turned around, never seen him --

我本來絕不會轉過身看他。

he shouted, "That's my scone!

他大聲說：「那是我的司康！

I've been waiting in line 20 minutes."

我已經排了 20 分鐘了。」

And I was like, "Who are you?

我當時想：「你哪位？

I've been waiting in line 20 minutes, and you're behind me."

我也排了 20 分鐘， 而你排在我後面。」

So, I grew up here in New York,

我就在紐約長大，

and went to high school not that far from here.

我的高中離這裡不遠。

And I may seem, you know, very civil here and so on,

我也許看起來，你們知道， 很有禮貌之類的。

but I can hip check anybody for a taxicab in this room, on these streets.

但我可以用屁股功和在場的 任何人，在馬路搶計程車。

So I was surprised when I said to this guy ...

我也非常訝異，當我對他脫口而出…

"Would you like half?"

「你想要一半嗎？」

"Would you like half?"

「你想要一半嗎？」

I didn't think about it, it just came out.

我想都沒想，話就這麼 從我嘴裡冒出來了。

And then, he was very puzzled, and I could see his face change

他也愣了一下， 我看見他神情的變化。

and he said to me,

接著他對我說：

"Well, how about if I buy another pastry and we'll share both of them?"

「那我買個其他的糕點， 然後我們一起分享如何？」

And he did, and we did.

他真買了另外一個糕點， 我們也一起分享了糕點。

And we sat and talked.

我們坐了下來開始聊天。

We had nothing in common.

我們沒有任何交集。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We had nothing in common: nationality, sexual orientation, occupation.

我們沒有任何交集： 國籍、性取向、職業。

But through this moment of kindness, through this moment of connection,

但透過這個善意的瞬間， 透過這個聯結的瞬間，

we developed a friendship, we have stayed in touch.

我們牽起了一段友誼， 我們現在還保持聯繫。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Although he was appalled to learn that I'm called the Civilist after that.

雖然後來他得知我被稱為 文明主義者時相當驚恐。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But I call this the joy of civility.

但我稱之為公民素養的樂趣。

The joy of civility.

公民素養的樂趣。

And it led me to wonder,

它引導我去思忖一個問題：

what is the good we forgo, not just the trouble we avoid,

當我們選擇無禮的時候， 在避免了一些麻煩的同時，

when we choose to be uncivil.

我們是否也錯過了美好的可能？

And by good, I mean friendship, I mean connection.

所謂美好，我指友誼、我指聯結、

I mean sharing 1000 calories.

我指分享一大卡熱量。

But I also mean it in a larger way.

但也有更廣義的好處。

You know, as communities and as a country and as a world.

作為社區、作為國家、作為世界、

What are we missing out on?

我們錯過了什麼？

So, today, we are engaged in a great civil war of ideas and identity.

現今，我們正身陷一場 重大的思想和認同內戰。

And we have no rules for them.

而我們沒有規則可循。

You know, there are rules for war.

你們知道，戰爭是有規則的。

Think about the Geneva Conventions.

想想日內瓦公約，

They ensure that every soldier is treated humanely,

公約確保每個士兵都得到人道待遇，

on and off the battlefield.

無論是在戰場上還是下了戰場。

So, frankly, I think we need a Geneva Convention of civility,

直白地說，我認為我們 需要訂定公民素養的日內瓦公約

to set the rules for discourse for the parameters of that.

為時下的論述提供一套規範，

To help us become better citizens of our communities and of our countries.

幫助我們成為社區 和國家中更好的公民。

And if I have anything to say about it,

如果關於這個公約 我有什麼要說的，

I would base those rules on the original definition of civility,

我會把所有規則建立在 公民素養的本意上，

from the Latin and from the French.

源於拉丁語和法語的本意。

Civility:

「公民素養」：

citizens willing to give of themselves for the greater good.

願意為了更大的利益、

為了城市的利益而奉獻自己的公民。

For the good of the city.

So I think civility, with that understanding, is not a dirty word.

如果我們這樣理解「公民素養」， 它便不再是一個髒字。

And I hope the civilist will not become, or will not stay, obsolete.

我希望「文明主義者」 這個詞不再過時。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）