My Facebook 新增面書 心空海嶽 by the inner space 歡迎光臨 Welcome in

「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Thursday, January 22, 2009

文明衝突

文明衝突



在明報讀到一篇集東西方文化、經濟、思想,進行分析的學術性文章,全文頗長,有耐性的朋友,可以讀讀!否則建議先讀 first to fifth paragraph 第一至五段,首五段後即可跳到 last paragraph 末段的 Conclusion 結語嘞。


作者 許寶強是嶺南大學 文化研究系副教授
許教授在 2009-01-05于明報發表一篇文章名為:
文明衝突 與 自由放任的終結~~弗里曼 和 亨廷頓 辭世之後


明報專訊剛離世的美國哈佛大學政治學者亨廷頓(Samuel Huntington),於20世紀90年代發表的,《文明衝突 The Clash of Civilizations》 ,惹起不少爭議。《文明衝突》先於1993年以學術論文的形式發表在《外交事務 Foreign Affairs》期刊,再於1996年以專書出版(The Clash of Civilizations——Remaking of World Order, New York : Simon & Schuster)。


亨廷頓的論點並不複雜,他認為隨著冷戰的結束,新的國際張力將受到八大文明——西方、東正教、拉美、伊斯蘭、中國儒家、日本、印度和非洲——之間的衝突所主宰。對伊斯蘭與西方之間的矛盾,《文明衝突》著墨尤多。晚近的文明衝突論支持者,往往援引九一一事件來支持亨廷頓的理論,產生或強化的文化政治效果,輕的是最近美國客機驅趕回教徒落機的鬧劇,重則包括合理化美軍長駐中東和以色列空襲加沙。反對者則指亨廷頓的說法粗疏,不僅無視世界各地豐富多元的原住民文化,同時也隨意地把以色列併入西方文明,又忽略了以佛教為主要文化的地區。


文明為什麼只剩下衝突?
著有《東方論述》(Orientalism)和《文化與帝國主義》(Culture and Imperialism)的已故哥倫比亞教授薩伊德(Edward Said),批評亨廷頓只看到「文明」間的衝突,而無視「文明」間的交流、分享和相互孕育。
他在題為
《無知的碰撞 The Clash of Ignorance》 , The Nation, Oct.4, 2001 的文章中,這樣寫道:
「我們西方人、伊斯蘭與其他人群都同游於彼水之中,而這些水均共享同一歷史海洋的源頭,因此嘗試(把「文明」)分隔和劃地為牢是毫無意義的。這確實是充滿張力的時代,但與其短暫地滿足於缺乏堅實知識、極端抽象的(文明衝突這種)胡思亂想,不如正視有權和無權社群之間的矛盾、理智和無知的現世政治、公義與不公義的普世原則。『文明衝突』論就像是『不同世界之間的戰爭』這類說法一樣的花招,只會強化自我防衛的偏見,無助於批判地理解我們時代複雜的相互依存關係。」(筆者許寶強譯)


回顧歷史,薩伊德所說的「文明」間的交流、分享和孕育等依存關係,顯然並非微不足道;而在我們這個所謂「全球化」的年代,「文明」間的相互滲透,更是無處不在。問題因此是:如何理解亨廷頓只著眼於「文明」之間的衝突?為什麼這種側重衝突的文明觀,能夠在20世紀90年代以降備受關注和重視?要回答這些問題,有必要把亨廷頓的文明衝突論,置放於特定的歷史脈絡之中。


曾於1977至1978年美國卡特政府的國家安全委員會任職的亨廷頓,在1989年蘇聯東歐社會主義陣營解體和冷戰的結束後,提出文明衝突論,可以理解為一種重新為美國尋找敵人的嘗試。為美國樹立新的敵人,替代冷戰時期的蘇共「邪惡帝國」,恐怕是想繼續合理化美國的軍事擴張和外交政冶上的合縱連橫~~拉攏拉美、東歐以對抗中東和東亞~~延續美國的政治和軍事霸權。對美國的民主或共和黨政府來說,亨廷頓的文明衝突論,都有助推動內政和外交上民粹政治的操作。


正如Ernesto Laclau在On Populist Reason(2005)一書指出,了解民粹主義的操作,是打開理解當代政治運作的鎖匙。作為一種政治邏輯,民粹操作依賴的是一種截然對立的敵我建構,以便把內部紛雜多樣的「人民」,打造成擁有同一訴求(和敵人)的集體身分,當中需要意義含混的空洞能指(empty signifier)作為中介,以建構一種不可能存在的統一體(例如「西方文明」)。


借助Laclau有關民粹主義的分析來閱讀亨廷頓的「理論」,或可更明白為什麼他只集中於討論「文明」間的「衝突」。建構伊斯蘭和中國等異族「文明」的「威脅」,正好用來填補失去了蘇共這「邪惡」「敵人」的空缺,以打造美國(以至「西方」)「人民」的集體身分認同;而含義不清、內容空洞的「八大文明」及它們之間的「衝突」,也可用來承載美國「人民」在後冷戰時期和社會兩極分化下各式各樣的焦慮和訴求。這恐怕才是文明衝突論在20世紀90年代以降一紙風行的真正原因。


重讀 凱恩斯 博蘭尼
如果以只有極少數人發動的九一一襲擊來「印證」伊斯蘭和西方「文明」的衝突,只是一種以偏概全的虛妄,那麼是次席捲全球的金融海嘯,似乎更能普遍反映放任主義(laissez-faire)的遺害。在過去30年橫行的放任主義和相關的政策,不僅造成嚴重的全球兩極分化,更導致影響深遠的金融海嘯,當中反映的,恐怕並不是抽象和含義不清的「文明衝突」,而是薩伊德所指的坐落於有權和無權的社群、理智與無知的政治力量、公義和不公義的普世原則之間的矛盾。而要理解「我們時代複雜的相互依存關係」,似乎無可避免先要告別文明衝突論,認真分析導致金融海嘯的歷史原因,重新審視過去主宰全球的放任主義。


凱恩斯(J. M. Keynes)在其寫於上世紀20年代中的
《自由放任的終結 The End of Laissez-faire》, 收於New York: Prometheus Books, 2004中,提醒我們研究觀念的歷史(history of opinion)是思想解放的前提。置身金融海嘯中,重讀凱恩斯和博蘭尼(Karl Polanyi)有關放任主義在19世紀至20世紀初興衰的論斷,應有助我們理解當代的處境。


凱恩斯指出,雄霸19世紀的自由放任觀念,並非源自Adam Smith和Ricardo等政治經濟學大師,而是出於政治哲學家之手,再經一些二流經濟學者(secondary economic authorities)和教育機器(educational machine)的不斷自我複製,終於成為了主導一時的陳腔濫調(copybook maxim)。凱恩斯認為,放任主義之所以在19世紀大行其道,除了是對18世紀無能和貪腐的政府的反動外,也得力於物競天擇、適者生存的庸俗社會達爾文主義觀念的流行,同時又受益於放任主義的簡單易懂和其論辯對手──保護主義和國家社會主義──的脫離現實。


不約而同,博蘭尼在其名著《大轉變》(The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1944/1957)也論及自由放任觀念的興衰。他指出19世紀興起的放任主義(laissez-faire)和經濟自由主義(economic liberalism),在破壞了傳統的社群文化生活之餘,也同時造就了社會(包括自然、人和金錢)的自我保護,最終導致放任主義和經濟自由主義自身的末路。


凱恩斯和博蘭尼都批評放任主義者思想混亂,經濟自由主義的理論與事實不符。這些指控,其實是反映了「自由放任」和「經濟自由」等空洞能指的屬性──它們並非要表述任何具體和正面的內容,只是嘗試扣連無法真正統合的「人民」紛雜訴求。而同樣空洞的「保護主義」和「社會主義」,則正好作為「人民」的敵人,成就推動社會往資本主義方向轉變的民粹大計。換句話說,與「文明衝突論」一樣,「自由放任主義」在19世紀以至過去30年間的流行,彰顯的恐怕不是政治學者或經濟學家的真知灼見,而是民粹主義的氾濫。


20世紀30年代的經濟大衰退,見證了主宰整個19世紀的「放任主義」和「經濟自由主義」的沒落,而在21世紀金融海嘯的衝擊下,當代的自由放任論調也步入黃昏。隨著鼓吹放任主義的弗里曼(Milton Friedman)和提出文明衝突論的亨廷頓相繼辭世,勇於偏向財閥和發動戰爭的布殊政府正式步下歷史的舞台,在各少數族裔的支持下,美國終於選出了第一位黑人總統。這種種轉變,是否正預示了分別為貧富兩極分化和種族仇恨/歧視提供理據的自由放任與文明衝突論,正式走向終結?



上文長篇大論,引經據典,搬出幾個大名,最終祇是為了要說:為何? WHY? 美國會有第一位黑人總統,民主黨的奧巴馬出現。奧巴馬先在黨內初選,脫穎而出,先後擊敗多位民主黨內的白人對手,包括志在必得的前第一夫人 希拉莉克林頓女士。再在08年11月美國全國大選中,勝了代表傳統白人保守勢力,純白人共和黨總統候選人 麥凱恩。


Well 冇辦法囉,在香港學者們的成績、成就、成功、成名,是靠發表的文章數量來論成敗,多過文章的質量,之後引用次數多寡。發表文章數量容易統計,質量就見仁見智了,要去追蹤引用多寡,難度更高,而且中國人一向文人相輕,若要搵老外學者來評核、評閱、評審,就更加困難了,費時失事。記得九七之前,本港兩間歷史悠久的大學,存在聘請『校外主考』的制度,即是每個學系個 panel,要多請一位外國學者當成員,去 reaffirm 本地成員,不知回歸之後,還有沒有繼續呢?


Anyway 孤勿論甚麼都好,奧巴馬話要 Change! 改變! 他將要建立一個近附社會主義的美國,早在競選就有跡象,眾所周知有跡可尋。加上金融大海嘯的沖擊,政府向銀行、金融機構和三大車廠注資,間接地國有化了,成就了規範化,受到嚴密監控,自由經濟主義切底被推翻,被否定了。


奧巴馬 sell 給美國人的另一個賣點,就是 The audacity of hope:Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream 給予民眾一個希望,給美國人一個夢想。人們有著祈望、希望,就會較有耐性,總希望明天會變得更好,今天唔好的話,希望明天就會變好,但『明日復明日 明日何其多』。夢是可以發完又再發過,美國人可以不停的發夢,發他們的春秋『白日夢』!


In his inaugural speech Obama said: ". . . . this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart."


奧巴馬在就職演說中話:『。。。這場危機提醒我們,如果沒有監管,市場很可能就會失控,而祇偏袒富人,國家的繁榮無法持久。國家經濟的成敗,不僅僅取決於國內生產總值的大小,而是取決於繁榮的覆蓋面,取決於我們是否有能力,讓所有有意願的人都有機會。』


希望奧巴馬不至于是要推行『福利社會主義』、『保護主義』和『計劃經濟』,否則這個 Dream 將會是一場『惡夢』!



後記:
另一位學者 中文大學亞太研究所 研究助理教授 沈旭暉
亨廷頓﹕學術與政治的掙扎 2009年1月6日



後後記:
得到一位在紐約打工的舊同事 Email咗,這個有趣的課題:
I hope he(Obama)FAILS”. Apparently a radio talkshow host
Rush Limbaugh said:
"I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed. . . . . Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails. . . . . Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."

全文:I HOPE HE FAILS by Rush Limbaugh


Futhermore many responded to this and one of the many said:
Why I Want Barack Obama To Fail As President
Now we arrive at where I stand on Obama's relative "success." I did not vote for the man. I do not support his socialist ideas. I stand four-square against his votes for infanticide, his votes to gut the Constitutional right to self-protection, his vague ideas of nationalizing various industries, his intention to enlarge government to unheard of proportions and his softening on terror producing countries. And since these are the things his entire life's career point to as probable goals to "succeed" upon during his presidency… well, I want him to fail. And I want him to do so spectacularly. If Barack Obama is but a Trojan Horse for communism to push its nose under and into the tent, I want him to fail in the attempt.

Simply put I want these ideas to fail miserably because success for them would mean the destruction of this country. So, wishing Obama to succeed would be hoping for the destruction of my country if success means the accomplishments of goals like I mention above.




伸延閱覽:
The Clash of Civilizations ~ Samuel P. Huntington 1993 英文原文 utexas.edu
The Clash of Ignorance ~ Edward Said 英文原文 thenation.com
The End of Laissez-faire ~ John Maynard Keynes 英文原文 panarchy.org
文明衝突 與 自由放任的終結~~弗里曼 和 亨廷頓 辭世之後 明報
亨廷頓﹕學術與政治的掙扎 明報
Obama Inaugural Speech 原文 CNN.Com
美國總統奧巴馬就職演說(全文) 新浪網
奧巴馬就職演說(全文) 中國評論新聞
奧巴馬臨危登大位 經濟績效決定成敗 明報社評
激情奧巴馬難再現 蔡子強
Rush Limbaugh: I hope he fails 谷歌搜尋
Why I Want Barack Obama To Fail As President by Warner Todd Huston redstate.com
Why I Want Barack Obama To Fail As President freerepublic.com


我的舊文:
一年一度 JibJab
市場經濟的盡頭
悼佛利民 悼自由經濟主義






12 comments:

微豆 Haricot said...

>> ... 『福利社會主義』、『保護主義』和『計劃經濟』

One should first decide what results we want to achieve, then decide on the appropriate tools, and not the other way around. From a governance perspective, there are generally three types of goals/results:
* Social
* Political
* Economic

『福利社會主義』: In terms of social goals, I mean if people are starving and dying on the streets, it will be hard for the US govt to say: Sorry, can't help you cuz we are not a welfare state. Now if you are talking abt "corporate welfare" (aka bailout), then it should fall under the next two categories.

『保護主義』: At least in the short term, it will be political suicide for the US govt to be seen as NOT protecting local jobs and industries.

『計劃經濟』: From a economic perspective, the financial sector is broken and needs fixing. While people do not want socialist-style centralized planning, they are expecting the US govt to intervene into the private sector and turn the US economy around in an orderly fashion. This obviously will involve economic planning by the different levels of govts, industry and other sectors of the society. Even in better days, both national and international monetary institutions are always involved in economic planning. Now, whether they have done a good job or not, that's another matter.

微豆 Haricot said...

On the subject of 文明衝突, I would like to offer the following:

I do not necessarily subscribe to the "super hero in search of super villains" theory. Sure, socialism and communism have always been the "traditional" villains of the US, but the conflict is more ideology driven and is always in the name of defending US influence, democracy and values. I mean the US did not continue portraying Japan as a villain after WWII. The "Japs" could have been an easy target. Nor, was there an open conflict betwn the US and certain Islamic militant groups until after 911. And, I would submit that most Americans did not know much abt the "other" civilization before that fateful day. Here again, the US war against terrorism is not a war betwn civilizations, although some politicians might have taken advantage of the fear factor (異族/異教) and label it as such. Based on my observation that yesterday's friends could become today's enemies, I would submit that most conflicts are caused more by present day foreign policies and international relationships rather than any century-old cultural differences.

微豆 Haricot said...

On the subject of自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了。:

One must be clear as to what we mean by 自由經濟主義. On the global scale, there are more and more bilateral economic cooperation (e.g. Canada-Columbia) and multi-lateral economic systems (e.g. WTO, APEC, NAFTA) established to encourage free-trade among nations. Non-tariff trade barriers are taken down and goods and services flow across borders. So the world trend is for "freer" trade albeit with the adherence of certain rules and regulations within an agreed economic structure. So, in this context,自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了 is not exactly the case.

However, I do agree that within a nation, especially in the US, the recent financial woe is a wakeup call to people such as Greenspan who had been pushing for a laissez-faire policy for a long time. But even with planned govt interventions in the form of policies, regs and (gulp!) bailout, I am not sure if one can then conclude自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了. My sense is that: Once the financial wheels are back on the track and the US economy train starts running again, the private sector (and not the govt) will still be the driver. The govt regulators will keep a close eye on the overall operation, but there will not be a state-run economy.

the inner space said...

噢!hari 兄:
I am gratified by your thorough response to my article, I shall try my best to make myself clear why I was saying that during the weekend.

有關『福利社會主義』、『保護主義』和『計劃經濟』我文內祇說:希望奧巴馬不至于是要推行『福利社會主義』、『保護主義』和『計劃經濟』,否則這個 Dream 將會是一場『惡夢』!

顯然他只就任兩天,還沒有具體實行,但有跡可尋,問題是奧巴馬會做到幾盡呢?還是未知數!

至于『文明衝突』,兄臺的意見 intriguing,讓我慢慢消化後,再續!

最後關于:『自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了。』 起碼我已知道奧巴馬話:要重新談判,美、加和墨西哥三國的 NAFTA,我相信 Hari兄身在楓葉國,沒有理由沒有聽過罷。

其他的不在話下,奧巴馬要增加就業,企圖把 outsourcing 的職位搬回美國,創造職位的公司可以退稅,這是否一種政府補貼呢?中國可以寫定狀子,告到 WTO去!

其他其他的種種,留返週末再詳談!

不過,透過注資,成為大股東,間接地國有化了,成就了規範化,受到嚴密監控,通通是anti laissez-faire policy,顧我說『自由經濟主義切底被推翻丶被否定了。』若你認為不是,亦相去不遠矣,起碼我相信在奧巴馬任內都無翻身之日!

要開會了,週末再詳談!

exile from hk said...

I am surprised to see Rush Limbaugh's B.S traveled all the way to Hong Kong. Argh, the power of the Republican influences. I appreciate your post but I am an Obama supporter. I see a lot in this man and I hope he will make some real changes. I am all for bringing jobs back to the U.S. Bill Clinton was the one who first helped outsourcing jobs out of the U.S, we are paying the price while China and these big corporations benefit. Bill Clinton was sold to big money. I am praying Obama will be different. Well, it has only been 2 days. If Obama is a fake, we will be kicking his ass out of the White House in 4 years. You watch.

微豆 Haricot said...

Space 兄: 網上互硏,沒有所謂誰对誰不对,欢迎指教討論呀!!

Exile from HK: Just like Inner Space, I too will think more abt the different policy issues and implications arising from the "changing of guards" in the US. Obviously, Canada will be greatly affected, esp in the international trade/investment and foreign policy agenda.

the inner space said...

Well,Mr/Ms " Exile from HK"
re: I appreciate your post but I am an Obama supporter. . . . we will be kicking his ass out of the White House in 4 years.

Since you have bluntly stopped everybody from telling you about their thoughts regarding
Mr. Obama. What I can say is, thank you very much for your visit/comment.

I wish you and Mr. Obama the best of luck.

Humbly yours,
Space

the inner space said...

hari 兄:
透過討論也是尋求真理真相的一種方法,多謝你多多留言!


文明衝突
文明 civilization 和 文化 culture
我的 understanding 是 文明可以包涵多種文化,correct me IF I were wrong.

美國雖然是有很多不同民族,來自不同文明國度,有著不同文化背景,他們匯在一起,組成移民國家。但卻推行單元文化,不接納其他國家民族的文化文明,這與其他的移民國家例如:加拿大的多元文化傳統不同。

這令到美國人不尊重別人的文化文明,導致制定國策時,於國與國相處,忽略顧及別人感受,唯大美國獨尊,累積起來的錯失,衝突遂起。中東的阿拉伯民族性強悍,便訴諸武力,其他的只是沒有動武啫。

奧巴馬的出現和被選,是否意味美國改變了嗎?我絕不同意,奧巴馬是黑皮白心,他裡面是白的,他的成長由白人祖父母管教,深受影響,是白人多過黑人。如果睇表面有位黑人當總統,就是美國白人接納其他文明,便太一廂情愿了。所以我對奧巴馬是否能夠改善國內黑白人的情結,也都不抱妄想。奧巴馬可能比任何一位白人總統更甚,劃清界限,為的是避免給人口實。

Anyway the above are just my thoughts 亂噏!


其他的兩項我暫時沒有想作補充,容後有機會在討論罷。

請請!

Ms exile from hk :-) said...

"奧巴馬是黑皮白心"

Argh...this was exactly what the Republican party tried to pull during the campaign. The attempt to divide! Very sad.

the inner space said...

Mr/ Ms Exile from HK
First,wishing you a HAPPY Chinese New Year!
先祝你:新春快樂 牛年順境!



Well,吾道不孤噃!

exile from hk said...

吾道不孤噃???

Aiya! What does that mean? Sorry I don't understand.

I'm not here to bug you. I guess I have a big mouth, haha....happy new year to you too. Hope you make a lot of money this year.

the inner space said...

Mr/Ms Exile from HK
how big is your mouth I can not tell without seeing your picture!

"吾道不孤" 上網一查就有解釋和出處,不贅!

IF you meant what it pointed at, which I doubted you didn't know. Anyway, I was referring to "奧巴馬是黑皮白心", the Republican party said the same.

lastly thanks for your good wish period