注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

莫笑愚de午夜驪歌

一個人de獨舞——在文字構築的視覺花園。

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

一个孤独的旅人,一个人生的探险者,一个人间过客。从东半球到西半球,从城市到城市,从落日到落日,流浪、行走、品味生活。在命运之河驾一叶扁舟,用虔诚的朝圣者灵魂,赞美荆棘、爱和死亡。

网易考拉推荐

【原创译文】汉娜.阿伦特:关于暴力的思考  

2013-07-03 01:50:11|  分类: 莫笑译诗 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

汉娜.阿伦特:关于暴力的思考 - 莫笑愚 - 莫笑愚de午夜骊歌

 

 

纽约图书评介按:政治理论学者汉娜.阿伦特(1906-1975)在1963年到她去世为止的12年间,为纽约图书评介贡献了超过20篇文章、评论和信件。以下摘录自她的《关于暴力的思考》一文。该文于1969年2月27日发表。读者也可以登录www.nybooks.com/50/Arendt阅读全文。

 


暴力拥有工具的自然属性,惟有最终能够证明使用它具有正当性,才是理性的。并且,由于当我们行动时,我们对于正在做的一切绝无任何把握并预知事情的最终结果,因此,只有当追求短期目标时,暴力才具有理性。暴力并不促进目标的实现,也不推动历史或革命,但它的确可以将不满情绪戏剧化并引起公众的注意。正如康纳.克鲁斯.奥布赖恩所言:“暴力有时是必需的,它可以传递改良之声。” 的确,与鼓吹暴力的先知试图告诉我们的相反,相对于革命者而言,暴力对于改革者是一种更为有效的武器(通常情况下,马克思主义者对暴力的猛烈抨击并非发乎人道的动机,而是出于他们对革命不是阴谋和暴力行动的结果的清醒认识。)自从拿破仑改变了法兰西陈旧的教育体制以后,如果不是因为法国(在1968年5月)发生的学生暴动,法国也决不会接受最激进的改革法案,而且任何人做梦也不会想到(1968年)春季学期的骚乱会导致哥伦比亚大学的改革。

尽管如此,暴力实践的危险,即使在一个非极端的短期目标框架之内小心运作,也始终会是手段压倒结果。如果目标不能很快实现,其后果将不仅仅是失败,而是将暴力实践引入到整个政治体系之中。行动总是不可逆转的,在失利的情况下返回现状是不太可能的事情。暴力的做法,像所有的行动一样,可以改变世界,但最有可能的改变是一个更暴力的世界。

最后,公共生活中的官僚化程度越大,对暴力的吸引力也越大。在一个充分发育的官僚体系之内,没人会许可他人同他争辩,向他表达不满,或者对他的权力施加压力。官僚主义是政府的一种形式,在这种形式之内每个人都被剥夺了政治自由和行动的权利,因为没有人(承担责任)的规则并非没有规则,所有人都没有权力也并不意味着我们有暴政没暴君。世界各地学生造反的一个重要特征就是,这些骚乱直指执政的官僚政府。这解释了为什么这些反叛乍看起来是如此令人不安,东方的叛逆者要求的恰恰是那些言论和思想的自由,而这被西方的年轻叛逆者蔑视为毫不相干。在世界各地,巨大的政党机器已经成功地压倒了公民的声音,即使在拥有言论和结社自由的国家也不例外。

持不同政见者和反抗者在东方要求言论和思想自由作为政治行动的首要条件;而对生活在西方的叛逆者而言,这些首要条件已经不成其为暴乱的理由,或者通过暴乱能够带来自由的实质性提升。将政府转变为管理者,将共和制转变为官僚体制,以及与此相应的灾难性的公共领域的萎缩,在近代具有一个相当长的复杂的历史;而这个转变的进程在过去100年间由于政党官僚主义的崛起而大大加快了。

让人成为政治机器的是他的行动能力。这使人与他的同龄人团结一致,采取协调行动,并达成一些不互相帮助便压根儿不会想到和无法实现的目标和事业,更不用说他内心的欲望了,如果不是因为有这么一件礼物——开创某种新事物的话。归因于生活中暴力和权力的创造性的所有特质其实表明它们事实上属于行动的能力。我想这也可以证明,人类没有任何其他方面的能力受到了近代进步同样的影响。

进步,如我们迄今所理解的那样,是指经济增长这样一个越来越多、越做越大的永无休止的过程。一个人口、物件和财产越多的国家,对管理的需要也就越大,而与此相应的是更大的管理者的隐性权力。捷克作家帕维尔.科胡特在捷克进行自由实验的鼎盛期,将“自由公民”定义为“公民共同统治者”。他所指的正是“参与式民主”,除此之外别无其他。这在近年来的西方我们已经听到了很多。科胡特进一步说,如果“未来的千年不会成为一个超级文明的猴子的时代的话”,今天的世界正处于最需要“新的榜样”的时期。

这个新的榜样将不会经由暴力的做法而带来,尽管我倾向于认为其目前的颂扬缘于现代世界中行动能力的严重挫折。很简单的真相是,犹太社区和校园的暴乱“令人们觉得他们在用一种极少能够做到的方式共同行动。”我们不知道这些事件开启的是否是一种新的东西——新的榜样——或者是人类即将失去一名成员的死亡阵痛。就目前情况来看,当我们注意到这些超级大国被自身庞大的重量所拖累,这看起来似乎显示“新的榜样”将在一个小国、或者在一个大国严格界定的小的群众社区内的某些部分有机会崛起。

就解体过程而言,这在近年来已经变得如此明显——许多公共服务的衰败,学校和警察、邮政和交通、高速公路死亡率以及城市的交通问题——涉及到为群众社区服务的方方面面。规模大也受到脆弱性的困扰,而且,当无人能够胸有成竹地说何时何地已经达到了临界点,我们能够用达到几乎可以精确计量的程度观察,强度和弹性是怎样不知不觉地、一点一滴地从我们的体系中被毁灭和泄露。我想,同样真实的是,各种政党体系——在东方是一党独裁,在英国和美国是两党制,或者在欧洲是多党制——所有这些本该是为现代大众社会的政治需要服务的,并使由于“没有足够大的议院容纳所有人(约翰·塞尔登)”的直接民主被代议制民主替代成为可能。

此外,最近在世界各地兴起的民族主义,这通常被理解为一个全球性的右倾化趋向,现在已经达到这样的程度,它有可能威胁最古老和最成熟的民族国家。苏格兰和威尔士,布列塔尼和Proven?als,族群,其成功的同化是民族国家兴起的前提,而正在经由在伦敦和巴黎的针对中央集权政府的反叛走向分裂主义。

同样,我们也不知道这些事态的发展将通向哪里,但是我们可以看到一些小国权力结构的裂缝是如何打开并扩大的。而且我们知道,或者应该知道,权力的每一寸削弱都是对暴力的一次公开邀请——要是那些握有权力并感觉到它正从他们手中溜走的人,总能察觉难以抗拒的替代暴力的诱惑,那该多好。

 

(莫笑愚译,初稿)

 

 

附原文: 

Reflections on Violence
Hannah Arendt

The political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) contributed over twenty articles, reviews, and letters to The New York Review between 1963 and her death twelve years later. The following is an extract from “Reflections on Violence,” published in the February 27, 1969, issue. It may be read in full at www.nybooks.com/50/Arendt.


arendt_archive_1-071113.jpg

Violence, being instrumental by nature, is rational to the extent that it is effective in reaching the end which must justify it. And since when we act we never know with any amount of certainty the eventual consequences of what we are doing, violence can remain rational only if it pursues short-term goals. Violence does not promote causes, it promotes neither History nor Revolution, but it can indeed serve to dramatize grievances and to bring them to public attention. As Conor Cruise O’Brien once remarked, “Violence is sometimes needed for the voice of moderation to be heard.” And indeed, violence, contrary to what its prophets try to tell us, is a much more effective weapon of reformers than of revolutionists. (The often vehement denunciations of violence by Marxists did not spring from humane motives but from their awareness that revolutions are not the result of conspiracies and violent action.) France would not have received the most radical reform bill since Napoleon to change her antiquated education system without the riots of the French students [in May 1968], and no one would have dreamed of yielding to reforms of Columbia University without the riots during the [1968] spring term.

Still, the danger of the practice of violence, even if it moves consciously within a non-extremist framework of short-term goals, will always be that the means overwhelm the end. If goals are not achieved rapidly, the result will not merely be defeat but the introduction of the practice of violence into the whole body politic. Action is irreversible, and a return to the status quo in case of defeat is always unlikely. The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is a more violent world.

Finally, the greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant. The crucial feature in the students’ rebellions around the world is that they are directed everywhere against the ruling bureaucracy. This explains what at first glance seems so disturbing, that the rebellions in the East demand precisely those freedoms of speech and thought that the young rebels in the West say they despise as irrelevant. Huge party machines have succeeded everywhere to overrule the voice of the citizens, even in countries where freedom of speech and association is still intact.

The dissenters and resisters in the East demand free speech and thought as the preliminary conditions for political action; the rebels in the West live under conditions where these preliminaries no longer open the channels for action, for the meaningful exercise of freedom. The transformation of government into administration, of republics into bureaucracies, and the disastrous shrinkage of the public realm that went with it, have a long and complicated history throughout the modern age; and this process has been considerably accelerated for the last hundred years through the rise of party bureaucracies.

What makes man a political being is his faculty to act. It enables him to get together with his peers, to act in concert, and to reach out for goals and enterprises which would never enter his mind, let alone the desires of his heart, had he not been given this gift—to embark upon something new. All the properties of creativity ascribed to life in manifestations of violence and power actually belong to the faculty of action. And I think it can be shown that no other human ability has suffered to such an extent by the Progress of the modern age.

For progress, as we have come to understand it, means growth, the relentless process of more and more, of bigger and bigger. The bigger a country becomes in population, in objects, and in possessions, the greater will be the need for administration and with it, the anonymous power of the administrators. Pavel Kohout, the Czech author, writing in the heyday of the Czech experiment with freedom, defined a “free citizen” as a “Citizen-Co-ruler.” He meant nothing else but the “participatory democracy” of which we have heard so much in recent years in the West. Kohout added that what the world, as it is today, stands in greatest need of may well be “a new example” if “the next thousand years are not to become an era of supercivilized monkeys.”

This new example will hardly be brought about by the practice of violence, although I am inclined to think that much of its present glorification is due to the severe frustration of the faculty of action in the modern world. It is simply true that the riots in the ghettos and the rebellions on the campuses make “people feel they are acting together in a way that they rarely can.” We don’t know if these occurrences are the beginnings of something new—the “new example”—or the death pangs of a faculty that mankind is about to lose. As things stand today, when we see how the super-powers are bogged down under the monstrous weight of their own bigness, it looks as though the “new example” will have a chance to arise, if at all, in a small country, or in small, well-defined sectors in the mass societies of the large powers.

For the disintegration processes, which have become so manifest in recent years—the decay of many public services, of schools and police, of mail delivery and transportation, the death rate on the highways and the traffic problems in the cities—concern everything designed to serve mass society. Bigness is afflicted with vulnerability, and while no one can say with assurance where and when the breaking point has been reached, we can observe, almost to the point of measuring it, how strength and resiliency are insidiously destroyed, leaking, as it were, drop by drop from our institutions. And the same, I think, is true for the various party systems—the one-party dictatorships in the East as well as the two-party systems in England and the United States, or the multiple party systems in Europe—all of which were supposed to serve the political needs of modern mass societies, to make representative government possible where direct democracy would not do because “the room will not hold all” (John Selden).

Moreover, the recent rise of nationalism around the globe, usually understood as a world-wide swing to the right, has now reached the point where it may threaten the oldest and best established nation states. The Scotch and the Welsh, the Bretons and the Proven?als, ethnic groups whose successful assimilation had been the prerequisite for the rise of the nation state, are turning to separatism in rebellion against the centralized governments of London and Paris.

Again, we do not know where these developments will lead us, but we can see how cracks in the power structure of all but the small countries are opening and widening. And we know, or should know, that every decrease of power is an open invitation to violence—if only because those who hold power and feel it slipping from their hands have always found it difficult to resist the temptation of substituting violence for it.

 


Photo of Hannah Arendt in New York City, 1944

Photopraghed by Fred Stein

原文链接:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jul/11/hannah-arendt-reflections-violence/

 

 

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(581)| 评论(60)
推荐

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017