Uncategorized

微思客书评| 权力结构的语境及相关荐书

*本文正文首发于“端传媒”(https://theinitium.com/article/20150821-america-linyao/),微思客经授权转载,如需转载正文,请联系首发网站;封面图片源自fortruthssake.com。

编者按
本次为大家推送的正文《权力结构的语境》论述了社会中的“结构性不平等”(Structural Inequality)现象。借此机会,小编在文末为大家推荐了两本讨论此问题的政治理论(Political Theory)书籍,感兴趣的朋友可做相关拓展阅读。第一本由Melissa Williams撰写的Voice, Trust and Memory 从社会结构的角度分析了为何弱势团体(Marginalized Group)需要具备特定群体身份(Group Identity)的政治代表。该书曾于1999年获得美国政治科学协会(American Political Science Association)的Best First Book in Political Philosophy Award。第二本则是当代著名政治哲学家Iris Marion Young的遗作Responsibility for Justice。它从更为宏观的角度分析了结构性不正义(Structural Injustice)的问题,并提出了一套基于“社会关联性”(Social Connection)的正义理论模型。

权力结构的语境

林垚

美国又进入了总统大选季,共和党于8月6日率先开展了首场党内初选辩论。直到计划两个小时的辩论进行了四分之三时,主持人才首次、也是全场唯一一次,就种族关系提问。而唯一被问到的参选者,黑人医生本·卡尔森(BenCarson),也以“我在动手术时从没注意过病人的肤色”,轻描淡写地将此问题一带而过。毕竟共和党的选民核心是白人福音派,种族冲突并非他们关心的首要问题。

这与民主党的氛围形成了鲜明的对比。马里兰州前州长马丁·奥马里(Martin O’Malley)上个月参加了一次政治集会,为自己竞逐民主党的提名而造势。集会过程中,当听到台下黑人听众高喊“黑人性命,举足轻重!(Blacklives matter!)”的口号时,奥马里回应道:“黑人性命,举足轻重。白人性命,举足轻重。所有人的性命,都举足轻重。(Blacklives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.)”一句话捅了马蜂窝,台下听众群起嘘之,亲民主党媒体也连夜口诛笔伐。奥马里反应还算迅速,第二天便公开道歉,并在尔后的竞选中重点宣传自己对种族政策的规划,试图以此挽救在本党选民中的形象。

对不了解美国政治的人而言,奥马里一事引起的激烈反应或许颇难索解——什么?难道不是每条人命都举足轻重吗,凭什么黑人要在言辞上得到特殊的尊崇?连“白人性命举足轻重”都不让说、说了还要道歉,这不是赤裸裸的“反向种族歧视”吗?民主党一方怎么“政治正确”到了这个地步,连言论自由原则都弃如敝履?——诸如此类。

任何话语都要放在相应语境中,才能理解其背后的意义。从崔文·马丁(Tray von Martin)到瑞吉娅·波义德(Rekia Boyd),从埃里克·加纳(Eric Garner)到迈克尔·布朗(Michael Brown),近年来警察与治安人员杀死手无寸铁黑人的一连串争议命案,以及接踵而至的从轻判决,引发了社会对执法与司法系统中种族成见的高度关注。“黑人性命,举足轻重!”这个口号正是针对这些命案与判决,在抗议的过程中应运而生;也只有在对黑人的种族成见根深蒂固的现实语境中理解,方可真正体会到口号中蕴藏的愤怒、悲哀与无奈。

毫无疑问,从抽象的原则上说,所有人的性命,不论肤色,都是举足轻重的。但在现实中,受到种族成见迫切威胁,最容易无辜丧生警察枪口下的,是黑人,而不是白人。在这种情况下,喊出“黑人性命举足轻重”,绝无“白人性命无足轻重”、或者“黑人性命比别人更举足轻重”的意思,而是要提醒整个社会:尽管每个人口头上都念叨人人平等,但对黑人的种族成见,却常常让许多人忽略了“黑人也是人”、“黑人性命也举足轻重”这样简单的道理,忽略了既有的社会政治经济文化体系如何与种族成见共生,令相当多数的黑人陷入集体的险恶境地。正因如此,面对“黑人性命举足轻重”的呼声,答以“白人性命也举足轻重”,无异于暗示说:黑人所遭受的成见与歧视无关痛痒,没必要格外申诉,也不值得作为迫切的议题单独处理。这样的态度,怎能不引起关心种族问题者的不满。

可以说,社会政治经济文化各个层面交织而成的权力结构(power structure),以及不同身份所属群体在此结构中的权力差等(power differential),正是理解现实问题的最重要的语境。其重要性——及其遭到的忽视——绝不限于种族领域。比如,对“同志骄傲(gay pride)”这个概念,常有人愤慨道:“同志比直人了不起吗?既然声称性取向平等,凭什么又觉得身为同志是一件值得骄傲的事情?身为同志值得骄傲,那身为直人就不值得骄傲咯?”正因如此,美国、巴西、匈牙利等不少国家,都有人打着“直人骄傲(straight pride)”的旗号,组织反同性恋游行。

然而与“黑人性命,举足轻重!”的口号一样,“同志骄傲”的概念,并不是说只有同志身份才值得骄傲、直人身份就相反应当引以为耻,而是用来指出这样一个事实:当今社会仍然是一个由“异性恋规范(heteronormativity)”占主导的社会,主流文化自觉不自觉地推崇传统的性别角色,异性恋者“日用而不知”地享受着伴随其性取向而来的种种特权,同性恋群体在生活中经常要面对异性恋者无从体会的排斥与霸凌。传统性别权力结构的语境,对许多同性恋者的自尊造成了不同程度的威胁与损害;而“同志骄傲”正是用来对抗这种效应,令同志们得以感受支持与团结、维护自身尊严的武器,也提醒着异性恋者注意到周遭的不公、为社会的多元与宽容发声出力。

在现代政治光谱中,“左”与“右”是最常见的、也是用法最为混乱的一对概念。根据其中的一种用法,“左”与“右”的区别,在于对权力结构语境的重视与轻视。这种意义上的右翼认为,只要建立了形式平等的法治与不受干预的市场,社会竞争的隐蔽之手自会奖善惩恶、酬勤罚惰;说在这些制度之外还存在什么隐性的“权力结构”、说这些隐性“结构”中的“权力差等”会对弱势群体造成压迫、说我们应该尽力打破这些隐性的“压迫”,不是耸人听闻,便是庸人自扰。相反,这种意义上的左翼则认为,权力结构与权力差等,是真实且顽固的存在;形式平等与市场竞争固然极其重要,但并不足以消除弱势群体遭遇的不公与不幸,甚至有时候反而会固化和加剧他们的困难;因此,打破隐蔽的恶性权力结构、或者至少抵御这些结构对显性制度的扭曲,便构成了政治生活中无可回避的挑战。

基于这种用法,人们的确有理由给美国两党贴上常见的标签:共和党属于右翼,民主党属于左翼。

编辑荐书(英文介绍源自亚马逊网站)

Voice, Turst and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation, Melissa Williams

Winner of the 1999 Best First Book in Political Philosophy Award, Foundations of Political Theory Section of the American Political Science Association

Does fair political representation for historically disadvantaged groups require their presence in legislative bodies? The intuition that women are best represented by women, and African-Americans by other African-Americans, has deep historical roots. Yet the conception of fair representation that prevails in American political culture and jurisprudence–what Melissa Williams calls “liberal representation”–concludes that the social identity of legislative representatives does not bear on their quality as representatives. Liberal representation’s slogan, “one person, one vote,” concludes that the outcome of the electoral and legislative process is fair, whatever it happens to be, so long as no voter is systematically excluded. Challenging this notion, Williams maintains that fair representation is powerfully affected by the identity of legislators and whether some of them are actually members of the historically marginalized groups that are most in need of protection in our society.

Williams argues first that the distinctive voice of these groups should be audible within the legislative process. Second, she holds that the self-representation of these groups is necessary to sustain their trust in democratic institutions. The memory of state-sponsored discrimination against these groups, together with ongoing patterns of inequality along group lines, provides both a reason to recognize group claims and a way of distinguishing stronger from weaker claims. The book closes by proposing institutions that can secure fair representation for marginalized groups without compromising principles of democratic freedom and equality.

Responsibility for Justice, Iris Marion Young

When the noted political philosopher Iris Marion Young died in 2006, her death was mourned as the passing of “one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter-century” (Cass Sunstein) and as an important and innovative thinker working at the conjunction of a number of important topics: global justice; democracy and difference; continental political theory; ethics and international affairs; and gender, race and public policy.

In her long-awaited Responsibility for Justice, Young discusses our responsibilities to address “structural” injustices in which we among many are implicated (but for which we not to blame), often by virtue of participating in a market, such as buying goods produced in sweatshops, or participating in booming housing markets that leave many homeless. Young argues that addressing these structural injustices requires a new model of responsibility, which she calls the “social connection” model. She develops this idea by clarifying the nature of structural injustice; developing the notion of political responsibility for injustice and how it differs from older ideas of blame and guilt; and finally how we can then use this model to describe our responsibilities to others no matter who we are and where we live.

With a foreward by Martha C. Nussbaum, this last statement by a revered and highly influential thinker will be of great interest to political theorists and philosophers, ethicists, and feminist and political philosophers.

作者:林垚,哥伦比亚大学政治学博士候选
编辑:童志超,微思客书评版块编辑
校对:宋韬,法学硕士在读
Advertisements

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 更改 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 更改 )

Connecting to %s