Is civility a sham? | Teresa Bejan

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Melody Tang

This talk contains mature language Viewer discretion is advised

[本演說內容含有成人用語， 觀者請自行斟著。]

Let's get this out of the way.

我們就直說吧。

I'm here because I wrote a book about civility,

我來這裡，因為我寫了一本 關於舉止要有禮貌的書，

and because that book came out

因為那本書推出的時間

right around the 2016 American presidential election,

剛好是 2016 年 美國總統大選前後，

I started getting lots of invitations to come and talk about civility

我開始接到許多演說邀請， 去談有禮貌的舉止，

and why we need more of it in American politics.

也去談為什麼美國政壇 需要更多禮貌。

So great.

好棒。

The only problem was that I had written that book about civility

唯一的問題是，我之所以 會寫那本關於舉止禮貌的書，

because I was convinced that civility is ...

是因為我深信，舉止有禮是……

bullshit.

狗屁。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now, that may sound like a highly uncivil thing to say,

這樣說可能聽起來還蠻粗魯的，

and lucky for you, and for my publisher,

你們很幸運， 我的出版商也很幸運，

I did eventually come to change my mind.

因為我最後還是改變心意了。

In the course of writing that book

在寫那本書的過程中，

and studying the long history of civility and religious tolerance

以及在研究十七世紀 禮貌和宗教包容間的漫長歷史時，

in the 17th century,

I came to discover that there is a virtue of civility,

我漸漸發現舉止有禮是有優點的，

and far from being bullshit, it's actually absolutely essential,

而且完全不是狗屁， 它其實非常重要，

especially for tolerant societies,

特別是對於包容的社會， 像我們這樣的社會，

so societies like this one, that promise not only to protect diversity

不僅承諾要保護多樣性，

but also the heated and sometimes even hateful disagreements

還要保護激昂甚至帶著仇恨的歧見，

that that diversity inspires.

這些歧見因多樣性而來。

You see, the thing about disagreement

歧見有一項特點，

is that there is a reason

那就是，「不合意」

that "disagreeable" is a synonym for "unpleasant."

和「不愉快」是同義詞是有理由的。

As the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out

英國哲學家湯瑪斯·霍布斯指出，

all the way back in 1642,

回溯到 1642 年，

that's because the mere act of disagreement is offensive.

「不同意」這件行為本身就是冒犯。

And Hobbes is still right. It works like this:

霍布斯仍然是對的， 它的運作方式如下：

so, if you and I disagree,

所以，如果你和我有歧見，

and I'm right, because I always am,

而我是對的，因為我永遠是對的，

how am I to make sense of the fact that you are so very, very wrong?

我要如何理解你錯得 非常非常離譜的這個事實？

It couldn't possibly be that you've just come to a different conclusion

難道不可能你是出於善意 而得出不同的結論嗎？

in good faith?

不可能，你一定是在盤算什麼，

No, you must be up to something, you must be stupid,

你一定很笨、很頑固、有利害關係。

bigoted, interested.

Maybe you're insane.

也許你瘋了。

And the same goes the other way. Right?

對方也會有同樣的想法。對吧？

So the mere fact of your disagreeing with me

所以，光是你和我有歧見的這個事實，

is implicitly an insult not only to my views, but to my intelligence, too.

不只意味著你在侮辱我的觀點， 也是在侮辱我的智慧。

And things only get worse when the disagreements at stake

情況只會更糟，如果這些歧見

are the ones that we somehow consider to be fundamental,

剛好是我們都認為是 很根本的議題上，

whether to our worldviews or to our identities.

不論是和我們的世界觀 或身分認同有關。

You know the kinds of disagreement I mean.

你們知道我指的是哪些歧見。

One doesn't discuss religion or politics

我們不會在共進晚餐時 討論宗教、政治，

or increasingly, the politics of popular culture, at the dinner table,

也越來越多人不願意談 流行文化的政治，

because these are the disagreements,

因為這些都會有爭論，

這些都是大家真的 會產生嚴重歧見的議題，

these are the things that people really, seriously disagree about,

and they define themselves against their opponents in the controversy.

而他們在爭議中一定會以 自己的看法來反駁他們的對手。

But of course those fundamental disagreements

但，當然，那些根本上的歧見

are precisely the ones that tolerant societies

正是包容的社會——如美國—— 提議要包容的歧見，

like the United States propose to tolerate,

which perhaps explains why, historically, at least,

這可能就說明了為什麼， 至少在歷史上，

tolerant societies haven't been the happy-clappy communities of difference

包容的社會一直都不是 你有時候會聽說的

那種快樂和諧的差異團體。

that you sometimes hear about.

No, they tend to be places where people have to hold their noses

不，這些往往是 人們必須試圖忽略的地方，

and rub along together despite their mutual contempt.

儘管他們互相輕視彼此， 仍然勉強相處。

That's what I learned from studying religious tolerance

這是我在研究早期現代英國

in early modern England and America.

與美國的宗教包容時所學到的。

And I also learned that the virtue that makes

我還學到，有一種美德 可以讓「非謀殺式」的共存

that un-murderous coexistence, if you will, possible,

——你可以這麼說——成為可能。

is the virtue of civility,

那就是客氣有禮的美德。

because civility makes our disagreements tolerable

因為客氣有禮讓我們的歧見 變成可寬容的，

so that we can share a life together even if we don't share a faith --

所以我們可以共同生存，

即便我們沒有共同的信念——

religious, political or otherwise.

宗教、政治，或其他。

Still, I couldn't help but notice

我仍然忍不住會注意到

that when most people talk about civility today --

現今，大部分的人在談禮貌時——

and boy, do they talk about civility a lot --

他們可真是常常在談禮貌——

they seem to have something else in mind.

他們腦中似乎有其他的想法。

So if civility is the virtue that makes it possible to tolerate disagreement

所以，如果客氣有禮這種美德 能讓包容歧見成為可能，

so that we can actually engage with our opponents,

使我們能真正和我們的對手接觸，

talking about civility

那麼，「談論」客氣有禮

seems to be mainly a strategy of disengagement.

似乎主要是一種脫離的策略。

It's a little bit like threatening to take your ball and go home

它有一點像是 在比賽時不如你預期時，

你就威脅要把球拿走，回家不玩了。

when the game isn't going your way.

Because the funny thing about incivility

因為，粗魯失禮有一個有趣的特點，

is that it's always the sin of our opponents.

就是它永遠都是我們對手的罪過。

It's funny.

這很好笑。

When it comes to our own bad behavior,

當說到我們自己的不良行為，

well, we seem to develop sudden-onset amnesia,

我們的健忘症似乎就會突然發作，

or we can always justify it as an appropriate response

或我們總是找到正當理由，

說這是對於我們對手 最近一次惡行的妥當回應。

to the latest outrage from our opponents.

So, "How can I be civil to someone who is set out to destroy

所以，「如果一個人打算 要摧毀我所支持的一切，

我怎麼可能對他有禮貌？

everything I stand for?

And by the way, they started it."

順便一提，是他起頭的。」

It's all terrifically convenient.

這實在太方便了。

Also convenient is the fact that most of today's big civility talkers

還有一種也很方便的辯解，

那就是現今多數會說禮貌大話的人，

tend to be quite vague and fuzzy

在談到他們認為有禮貌 到底需要怎麼做時，

when it comes to what they think civility actually entails.

幾乎都說得相當模糊不清。

We're told that civility is simply a synonym for respect,

我們聽到的是， 客氣有禮就是尊重、

for good manners, for politeness,

有教養、禮貌的同義詞，

but at the same time, it's clear that to accuse someone of incivility

但同時，很顯然， 指控一個人很粗魯，

is much, much worse than calling them impolite,

比罵他沒禮貌要更糟許多，

because to be uncivil is to be potentially intolerable

因為，粗魯失禮就表示 有可能會無法忍受，

in a way that merely being rude isn't.

而且不是魯莾的那種無法忍受。

So to call someone uncivil, to accuse them of incivility,

所以，若說一個人不文明， 指控他很失禮粗魯，

is a way of communicating that they are somehow beyond the pale,

在傳達的訊息就是，

他們在某種層面上是社會所不容的，

that they're not worth engaging with at all.

完全不值得和他們接觸。

So here's the thing:

所以，重點就是：

civility isn't bullshit,

客氣有禮並不是狗屁，

it's precious because it's the virtue that makes fundamental disagreement

它很珍貴，因為這種美德 不但能夠讓根本的歧見可以存在，

not only possible but even sometimes occasionally productive.

偶爾還能讓歧見變得很有生產力。

It's precious, but it's also really, really difficult.

它很珍貴，但要做到也非常非常困難。

Civility talk, on the other hand,

另一方面，「談論」有禮，

well, that's really easy,

那就非常容易，

really easy,

非常容易，

and it also is almost always complete bullshit,

而且幾乎完全都是狗屁，

which makes things slightly awkward for me

這就讓我有點尷尬，

as I continue to talk to you about civility.

因為我還在繼續和你們「談」禮貌。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Anyway, we tend to forget it,

總之，我們常忘記一件事，

but politicians and intellectuals have been warning us for decades now

政客和知識分子數十年來 一直警告我們，

that the United States is facing a crisis of civility,

那就是：美國正在面臨禮貌的危機。

and they've tended to blame that crisis on technological developments,

而他們把這危機怪罪於科技發展，

on things like cable TV, talk radio, social media.

怪罪於有線電視、談話性廣播節目、

社交媒體等等。

But any historian will tell you

但，任何歷史學家都會告訴你， 歧見從來就沒有過黃金時代，

that there never was a golden age of disagreement,

let alone good feelings,

更不用說好感了， 在美國政治圈絕對沒有。

not in American politics.

In my book, though, I argue that the first modern crisis of civility

不過，在我的書中， 我主張禮貌的第一次現代危機

actually began about 500 years ago,

其實始於大約五百年前。

when a certain professor of theology named Martin Luther

那時，有位神學教授馬丁·路德

took advantage of a recent advancement in communications technology,

利用當代發展的溝通技術，

the printing press,

也就是印刷媒體，

to call the Pope the Antichrist,

來宣稱教皇是反對基督者，

and thus inadvertently launch the Protestant Reformation.

因此，不經意地造成了宗教改革。

So think of the press, if you will, as the Twitter of the 16th century,

所以，你們可以把新聞報刊 想像成十六世紀的推特，

and Martin Luther as the original troll.

而馬丁路德就是網路酸民的始祖。

And I'm not exaggerating here.

我並沒有誇張。

He once declared himself unable to pray

他曾經聲稱他自己無法禱告，

without at the same time cursing

因為他同時也咒罵

his "anti-Christian," i.e. Catholic, opponents.

他的「反基督徒」對手， 即：天主教徒。

And of course, those Catholic opponents clutched their pearls

當然，那些天主教對手 馬上進入防禦狀態，

and called for civility then, too,

也大聲疾呼著禮貌，

but all the while, they gave as good as they got

但最終，他們丟出來的， 和他們得到的沒什麼兩樣，

with traditional slurs like "heretic,"

都是傳統的詆毀，如「異教徒」，

還有最糟糕的，「新教徒」。

and, worst of all, "Protestant,"

which began in the 16th century as an insult.

這個詞從十六世紀開始， 就成了侮辱。

The thing about civility talk, then as now,

至於關於禮貌的談話， 當時和現在一樣，

was that you could call out your opponent for going low,

就是你可以大聲喊說

你的對手用低級手段，

and then take advantage of the moral high ground

接著以充滿道德的高姿態，

to go as low or lower,

來採取低級或更低級的手段，

because calling for civility sets up the speaker

因為先打出禮貌牌， 就能讓說話的人

as a model of decorum while implicitly, subtly stigmatizing

成為端莊的模範，而在不知不覺中

把任何有種不同意的人 誣蔑成無禮的人。

anyone with the temerity to disagree as uncivil.

And so civility talk in the 17th century becomes a really effective way

所以，在十七世紀，「談論」禮貌 就成了一種很有效的方式，

for members of the religious establishment

讓教會團體的成員

to silence, suppress, exclude dissenters outside of the established church,

可以堵住教會外反對者的嘴巴， 打壓、排擠他們，

especially when they spoke out against the status quo.

在他們出聲反對現狀時更是有效。

So Anglican ministers could lecture atheists

這樣，英國國教的牧師 就可以教訓無神論者，

on the offensiveness of their discourse.

說他們的言論有多麼冒犯人；

Everyone could complain about the Quakers

大家都可以抱怨貴格會教徒

for refusing to doff and don their hats

拒絕舉帽致意、再戴上他們的帽子，

or their "uncouth" practice of shaking hands.

或是他們「沒教養」的握手做法。

But those accusations of incivility

但說他們無禮的那些指控，

pretty soon became pretexts for persecution.

很快就變成了迫害的藉口。

So far, so familiar, right?

目前，聽起來都很熟悉，對吧？

We see that strategy again and again.

我們一而再、再而三地 看到這種策略。

It's used to silence civil rights protesters in the 20th century.

在二十世紀，它被用來 讓民權抗議者閉嘴。

And I think it explains why partisans on both sides of the aisle

我想這也解釋了為什麼 兩黨雙方的死硬派支持者

keep reaching for this, frankly, antiquated,

都不斷想要採用這種 坦白說已經過時的

early modern language of civility

近代早期對禮貌的措詞，

precisely when they want to communicate that certain people and certain views

而且都是在他們想要傳達 某些人及某些觀點

are beyond the pale,

是社會所不容，

but they want to save themselves the trouble

卻不想提出自己的論點的時候，

of actually making an argument.

因為這樣就能省去自己的麻煩。

So no wonder skeptics like me tend to roll our eyes

也難怪當有人開始 呼籲要談美德的時候，

when the calls for conversational virtue begin,

像我這樣的懷疑論者會翻白眼，

because instead of healing our social and political divisions,

因為我們的社會、政治分裂 並沒有因此被解決，

it seems like so much civility talk is actually making the problem worse.

談這麼多禮貌， 似乎還讓問題變得更糟糕。

It's saving us the trouble of actually speaking to each other,

這讓我們省下了與對方交談的麻煩，

allowing us to speak past each other or at each other

而是讓我們超越對方來說話， 或即使對著對方說話，

while signaling our superior virtue

也示意出我們高人一等的美德，

and letting the audience know which side we're on.

並讓觀眾知道我們是站在哪一邊的。

And given this, I think one might be forgiven, as I did,

在這樣的前提下， 我想大家能原諒我，

for assuming that because so much civility talk is bullshit,

我假設既然有這麼多 關於禮貌的言談都是狗屁，

well then, the virtue of civility must be bullshit, too.

那麼禮貌這種美德一定也是狗屁。

But here, again, I think a little historical perspective goes a long way.

但同樣的，我想， 小小的歷史觀點也能成就大事。

Because remember, the same early modern crisis of civility

因為，別忘了，正是禮貌 這種早期現代危機

that launched the Reformation

造成了宗教改革，

also gave birth to tolerant societies,

也因此誕生了包容的社會，

places like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania,

以及賓州、羅德島州這些殖民地，

and indeed, eventually the United States,

最終產生了美國。

places that at least aspired to protect disagreement

這些地方至少都受到鼓舞， 而去保護歧見

as well as diversity,

以及多樣性，

and what made that possible was the virtue of civility.

因為禮貌這項美德， 才讓這一切能實現。

What made disagreement tolerable,

歧見之所以能夠被包容，

what it made it possible for us to share a life,

我們之所以能在 沒有共同信念的情況下

even when we didn't share a faith,

仍然共同生活在一起，

was a virtue,

究其因就是一種美德，

but one, I think, that is perhaps less aspirational

但，我認為這種美德可能 比較不是志同道合的，

and a lot more confrontational

比較是對抗性的，

than the one that people who talk about civility a lot today

不像現今總是在 「談論」禮貌的那些人

心中所想的那種美德。

tend to have in mind.

So I like to call that virtue "mere civility."

所以，我想把那種美德 稱為「僅僅客氣」。

You may know it as the virtue that allows us to get through

你們可能知道這種美德， 讓我們能度過

our relations with an ex-spouse,

和前配偶的感情關係，

or a bad neighbor,

或和惡鄰居的關係，

not to mention a member of the other party.

更不用說和另一黨成員的關係了。

Because to be merely civil is to meet a low bar grudgingly,

因為，僅僅表現出客氣， 其實是勉強超過低標而已，

and that, again, makes sense,

同樣的，那也合理，

because civility is a virtue that's meant to help us disagree,

因為客氣有禮是一種本當用來 協助我們表示歧見的美德，

and as Hobbes told us all those centuries ago,

正如數百年前霍布斯所言，

disagreeable means unpleasant for a reason.

不同意的形容詞「不合意」 表示「不愉快」是有理由的。

But if it isn't bullshit, what exactly is civility or mere civility?

但，若不是狗屁，

那麼客氣有禮 或僅僅客氣到底是什麼？

What does it require?

它需要什麼？

Well, to start, it is not and cannot be

首先，它不會也不可能會

the same thing as being respectful or polite,

等同於尊重或是有禮貌，

because we need civility precisely when we're dealing with those people

因為我們需要客氣的時刻， 就是當我們要去處理

that we find it the most difficult, or maybe even impossible, to respect.

那些我們實在很難， 或甚至不可能去尊重的人時。

Similarly, being civil can't be the same as being nice,

同樣的，表現客氣 也不等同於對人好，

because being nice means not telling people what you really think about them

因為對人好意味著不要告訴別人

你對他們的真正看法，

or their wrong, wrong views.

也不能說他們錯了， 或是他們的看法很不對。

No, being civil means speaking your mind,

不，舉止客氣有禮意味著 要說出你的心思，

but to your opponent's face,

但要當著你的對手的面說出來，

not behind her back.

而不是在他們的背後說。

Being merely civil means not pulling our punches,

僅僅客氣的意思是不要有所保留，

but at the same time, it means maybe not landing all those punches all at once,

但同時，也意味著 不要一次就傾全力進攻，

because the point of mere civility

因為僅僅客氣的重點，

is to allow us to disagree, to disagree fundamentally,

是要讓我們能夠從根本上表示歧見，

but to do so without denying or destroying the possibility of a common life tomorrow

但這麼做時，不能否認或摧毀

今天我們認為是阻礙的那些人

with the people that we think are standing in our way today.

在明天共同生活的可能性。

And in that sense, I think civility is actually closely related

就那個層面來說，我認為客氣其實

to another virtue, the virtue of courage.

和另一種美德密切相關， 即勇氣的美德。

So mere civility is having the courage to make yourself disagreeable,

僅僅客氣就是要有勇氣

讓你自己不去迎合別人，

and to stay that way,

且保持那樣子，

but to do so while staying in the room

但這麼做時，還要能 和你的對手共處一室，

and staying present to your opponents.

而且要真正處在當下。

And it also means that, sometimes, calling bullshit on people's civility talk

那也意味著，有時， 說別人在談客氣是狗屁，

is really the only civil thing to do.

是唯一有禮貌的做法。

At least that's what I think.

至少我是這麼認為的。

But look, if I've learned anything from studying the long history

但，如果我在研究十七世紀 宗教包容的漫長歷史時

of religious tolerance in the 17th century, it's this:

有學到什麼的話，那就是：

if you're talking about civility as a way to avoid an argument,

如果你談論舉止有禮的目的 是要避免爭論，

to isolate yourself in the more agreeable company

在本來就和你有共識的 人群當中孤立自己，

of the like-minded who already agree with you,

if you find yourself never actually speaking to anyone

如果你發現你從來不會和

who really, truly, fundamentally disagrees with you,

任何從根本上 就和你有歧見的人說話，

well, you're doing civility wrong.

嗯，那你表現禮貌的方式就錯了。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）