So you probably have the sense, as most people do, that polarization is getting worse in our country, that the divide between the left and the right is as bad as it's been in really any of our lifetimes. But you might also reasonably wonder if research backs up your intuition. And in a nutshell, the answer is sadly yes. In study after study, we find that liberals and conservatives have grown further apart. They increasingly wall themselves off in these ideological silos, consuming different news, talking only to like-minded others and more and more choosing to live in different parts of the country.
你大概像大家一樣, 意識到這個國家愈來愈兩極化, 左派與右派之間的隔閡, 這輩子從來沒有像現在這麼糟過。 你也可能理性地想過 你的直覺是否有研究實證。 一言以蔽之,這個答案 很不幸的是「有」。 一個又一個的研究顯示 自由派與保守派早已漸行漸遠。 他們愈來愈把自己關在 意識形態的巨塔中, 看不同的新聞,只跟同類的人講話, 而且愈來愈傾向 選擇住在不同的地方。
And I think that most alarming of all of it is seeing this rising animosity on both sides. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, more and more they just don't like one another. You see it in many different ways. They don't want to befriend one another. They don't want to date one another. If they do, if they find out, they find each other less attractive, and they more and more don't want their children to marry someone who supports the other party, a particularly shocking statistic.
我認為最令人擔心的 是兩邊興起的敵意。 自由派與保守派, 民主黨與共和黨, 他們就是愈來愈不喜歡對方。 你在很多方面都能觀察到這件事。 他們不要跟對方做朋友。 他們不要跟對方約會。 即使約了,如果發現彼此立場不同, 就覺得對方不像之前那麼有吸引力, 他們愈來愈不想讓自己的孩子 與支持另一黨的人結婚, 這項統計特別令人震驚。
You know, in my lab, the students that I work with, we're talking about some sort of social pattern -- I'm a movie buff, and so I'm often like, what kind of movie are we in here with this pattern? So what kind of movie are we in with political polarization? Well, it could be a disaster movie. It certainly seems like a disaster. Could be a war movie. Also fits. But what I keep thinking is that we're in a zombie apocalypse movie.
你知道嗎,在我的實驗室, 我與共事的學生群 常常會聊一些社會模式── 我是個電影癡,我常常這樣想, 這樣的模式下我們在演哪齣電影? 政治兩極化下我們在演哪齣戲? 嗯,可能是災難片。 確實很像災難片。 可能是戰爭片。 也很像。 但是我一直都認為我們是活在 殭屍啟示錄這類的電影裡。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Right? You know the kind. There's people wandering around in packs, not thinking for themselves, seized by this mob mentality trying to spread their disease and destroy society. And you probably think, as I do, that you're the good guy in the zombie apocalypse movie, and all this hate and polarization, it's being propagated by the other people, because we're Brad Pitt, right? Free-thinking, righteous, just trying to hold on to what we hold dear, you know, not foot soldiers in the army of the undead. Not that. Never that.
對吧?你知道那種電影。 成群結隊的人四處晃盪, 完全身不由己, 被暴民心態奪心勾魂, 要傳播他們的疾病摧毀社會。 你大概跟我一樣會想 你是殭屍片裡的好人, 所有的仇恨啊兩極化啊, 都是另一邊的人搞起來的。 因為我們都是布萊德·彼特,對吧? 自由思考、正義凜然, 試圖堅守我們珍愛的, 你知道,不要當殭屍的走路工。 才不要。 絕對不要。
But here's the thing: what movie do you suppose they think they're in? Right? Well, they absolutely think that they're the good guys in the zombie apocalypse movie. Right? And you'd better believe that they think that they're Brad Pitt and that we, we are the zombies. And who's to say that they're wrong? I think that the truth is that we're all a part of this. And the good side of that is that we can be a part of the solution.
問題是: 你想他們覺得自己 是活在什麼電影裡呢? 對吧? 他們當然認為自己 才是殭屍片裡的好人,對吧? 你最好相信他們認為 自己才是布萊德·彼特, 而我們,我們才是殭屍。 誰能說他們是錯的? 我認為真相是我們都身在其中。 好的一面就是我們也可以 成為解決方案的一部分。
So what are we going to do? What can we do to chip away at polarization in everyday life? What could we do to connect with and communicate with our political counterparts? Well, these were exactly the questions that I and my colleague, Matt Feinberg, became fascinated with a few years ago, and we started doing research on this topic. And one of the first things that we discovered that I think is really helpful for understanding polarization is to understand that the political divide in our country is undergirded by a deeper moral divide.
那我們要怎麼辦? 我們在日常生活中要怎麼做 才能逐漸消彌兩極化? 我們要怎麼做才能 與我們政治上的死對頭 建立關係、對話? 這正是我與我的同事麥特.范柏格 在幾年前開始熱衷的問題, 我們開始研究這個題目。 我們最先發現的幾件事裡, 有一樣我認為對瞭解 兩極化非常有幫助, 就是我們必須了解 我國的政治分歧來自於 根深蒂固的道德分歧。
So one of the most robust findings in the history of political psychology is this pattern identified by Jon Haidt and Jesse Graham, psychologists, that liberals and conservatives tend to endorse different values to different degrees. So for example, we find that liberals tend to endorse values like equality and fairness and care and protection from harm more than conservatives do. And conservatives tend to endorse values like loyalty, patriotism, respect for authority and moral purity more than liberals do. And Matt and I were thinking that maybe this moral divide might be helpful for understanding how it is that liberals and conservatives talk to one another and why they so often seem to talk past one another when they do.
政治心理學史上 有一項強有力的發現, 由強海特及傑西格藍發現的模式, 這兩位是心理學家, 他們發現自由派及保守派 傾向對不同的價值觀 有不同程度的支持。 舉個例子,我們發現自由派 對於認同平等、公平、 關懷和保護免受傷害等價值觀, 其程度比保守派大。 保守派則對忠誠、愛國、 尊重權威及道德純潔等, 比自由派更加支持。 麥特和我認為或許這種道德分歧, 可能對了解 自由派與保守派的對話模式有幫助, 以及為什麼他們在對話時 常常好像雞同鴨講。
So we conducted a study where we recruited liberals to a study where they were supposed to write a persuasive essay that would be compelling to a conservative in support of same-sex marriage. And what we found was that liberals tended to make arguments in terms of the liberal moral values of equality and fairness. So they said things like, "Everyone should have the right to love whoever they choose," and, "They" -- they being gay Americans -- "deserve the same equal rights as other Americans." Overall, we found that 69 percent of liberals invoked one of the more liberal moral values in constructing their essay, and only nine percent invoked one of the more conservative moral values, even though they were supposed to be trying to persuade conservatives. And when we studied conservatives and had them make persuasive arguments in support of making English the official language of the US, a classically conservative political position, we found that they weren't much better at this. 59 percent of them made arguments in terms of one of the more conservative moral values, and just eight percent invoked a liberal moral value, even though they were supposed to be targeting liberals for persuasion.
所以我們做了一項研究, 我們招募自由派來做一項研究, 他們應該要寫一份說服性短論, 吸引保守人士支持同性婚姻。 我們發現自由派往往 用自由派的道德價值觀, 如平等及公平來論述。 所以他們會說出像這樣的話: 「每個人都應該有權利 愛他們選擇的人。」 而且「他們」──指美國同性戀── 「應與其他美國人享有 同樣的平等權利。」 總體而言,我們發現 69% 的自由派 會引用偏向自由派的道德 價值觀來寫短論, 只有 9% 會引用 偏向保守派的道德價值觀, 即使他們應該要試著說服保守派。 在我們研究保守人士, 要他們寫說服論據 支持讓英語成為美國的國語時, 這是很經典的保守派政治立場, 我們發現他們在這點的 表現也沒有比較好。 59% 的人論述時, 引用偏向保守派的道德價值觀, 只有 8% 引用一項 自由派的道德價值觀, 儘管他們說服的目標 應該是自由派人士。
Now, you can see right away why we're in trouble here. Right? People's moral values, they're their most deeply held beliefs. People are willing to fight and die for their values. Why are they going to give that up just to agree with you on something that they don't particularly want to agree with you on anyway? If that persuasive appeal that you're making to your Republican uncle means that he doesn't just have to change his view, he's got to change his underlying values, too, that's not going to go very far.
現在,你馬上就了解為什麼 我們有這種麻煩,對吧? 人的道德價值觀 是他們最堅信不移的信念。 人願意為了價值觀戰鬥、犧牲性命。 他們為什麼要放棄價值觀, 只為了與你認同 他們本來就不同意的東西? 如果你對共和黨叔叔 提出的那番呼籲, 不但要讓他改變觀點, 還要改變他最基本的價值觀, 大概沒有什麼效果。
So what would work better? Well, we believe it's a technique that we call moral reframing, and we've studied it in a series of experiments. In one of these experiments, we recruited liberals and conservatives to a study where they read one of three essays before having their environmental attitudes surveyed. And the first of these essays was a relatively conventional pro-environmental essay that invoked the liberal values of care and protection from harm. It said things like, "In many important ways we are causing real harm to the places we live in," and, "It is essential that we take steps now to prevent further destruction from being done to our Earth." Another group of participants were assigned to read a really different essay that was designed to tap into the conservative value of moral purity. It was a pro-environmental essay as well, and it said things like, "Keeping our forests, drinking water, and skies pure is of vital importance." "We should regard the pollution of the places we live in to be disgusting." And, "Reducing pollution can help us preserve what is pure and beautiful about the places we live." And then we had a third group that were assigned to read just a nonpolitical essay. It was just a comparison group so we could get a baseline.
所以怎麼做才有用? 嗯,我們相信有個方法, 我們稱之為道德重新框架, 我們對此用一系列的實驗來研究。 在其中一項實驗中, 我們招募自由派及保守派 來做一個研究, 他們先讀三篇短論中的一篇, 讀完之後對他們做環境態度調查。 第一篇短論 是比較常見的親環保派文章, 運用自由派關懷 及保護不受傷害等價值觀。 它會像這樣說: 「從很多重要方面來看, 我們都在對生活的地方 造成真正的危害。」 以及:「我們現在就必須採取步驟, 以避免對地球造成進一步的毀壞。」 另外一組參加者 則被指派閱讀一份截然不同的短論, 專為保守派道德純潔的價值而打造。 它也是一份親環保的短論, 而且它是這樣說的: 「讓我們的森林、飲水及天空 保持純淨是非常重要的。」 「我們應該視 汙染的居所為可憎之處。」 以及:「減少污染可以幫助我們保護 我們純潔而美麗的居所。」 然後我們指派第三組人 讀一份與政治無關的短論。 這只是一個對照組, 讓我們有基準線。
And what we found when we surveyed people about their environmental attitudes afterwards, we found that liberals, it didn't matter what essay they read. They tended to have highly pro-environmental attitudes regardless. Liberals are on board for environmental protection. Conservatives, however, were significantly more supportive of progressive environmental policies and environmental protection if they had read the moral purity essay than if they read one of the other two essays. We even found that conservatives who read the moral purity essay were significantly more likely to say that they believed in global warming and were concerned about global warming, even though this essay didn't even mention global warming. That's just a related environmental issue. But that's how robust this moral reframing effect was.
我們發現當我們調查 他們讀過之後的環境態度, 我們發現對自由派, 給他們讀什麼短論不重要。 無論如何他們都傾向 高度親環境態度。 自由派支持環保。 然而保守派人士 會顯著更支持先進的環境政策 及環境保護, 如果之前讓他們讀的 是道德純潔的短論, 效果會比另外兩篇更好。 我們甚至發現讀過 道德純潔短論的保守派, 更有可能說他們相信全球暖化 及擔心全球暖化, 即使短論中根本沒有提到全球暖化。 那只是相關的環保議題。 由此可知道德重新框架 效應有多強大。
And we've studied this on a whole slew of different political issues. So if you want to move conservatives on issues like same-sex marriage or national health insurance, it helps to tie these liberal political issues to conservative values like patriotism and moral purity. And we studied it the other way, too. If you want to move liberals to the right on conservative policy issues like military spending and making English the official language of the US, you're going to be more persuasive if you tie those conservative policy issues to liberal moral values like equality and fairness.
我們已對眾多不同的 政治議題做過同樣的研究。 所以如果你想促使保守人士 更支持同性婚姻或全民健保等議題, 把這些自由派政治議題 與保守派價值觀, 如愛國或道德純潔等 連起來會有幫助。 我們對另一邊也做過同樣的研究。 如果你想讓自由派傾右 支持保守派政治議題, 如軍費及英文國語化, 你會更具說服力, 只要你把這些保守政治議題 與自由派道德價值觀, 如平等及公平連在一起。
All these studies have the same clear message: if you want to persuade someone on some policy, it's helpful to connect that policy to their underlying moral values. And when you say it like that it seems really obvious. Right? Like, why did we come here tonight? Why --
這些研究都顯示出同樣的明確信息: 如果你想說服某人支持某項政策, 把該項政策與某人的基本道德價值 連結在一起會有幫助。 你可能會說 這非常顯而易見,不是嗎? 那我們今天晚上還來做什麼? 為什麼──
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
It's incredibly intuitive. And even though it is, it's something we really struggle to do. You know, it turns out that when we go to persuade somebody on a political issue, we talk like we're speaking into a mirror. We don't persuade so much as we rehearse our own reasons for why we believe some sort of political position. We kept saying when we were designing these reframed moral arguments, "Empathy and respect, empathy and respect." If you can tap into that, you can connect and you might be able to persuade somebody in this country.
這靠直覺就知道了。 即便如此,這真的很難做到。 你知道嗎,事實是當我們 想說服某人某項政治議題時, 我們好像在對著鏡子講話。 我們根本說服不了別人, 如果只重複論述自己的理由, 自己相信某項政治立場的原因。 我們一直在說要設計出 道德重新框架的論述, 你要有同理心及尊重, 同理心及尊重。 如果你能帶進這點, 你就能產生關係, 你或許就能在這個國家說服某人。
So thinking again about what movie we're in, maybe I got carried away before. Maybe it's not a zombie apocalypse movie. Maybe instead it's a buddy cop movie.
所以再想一下 我們是在演哪齣電影, 可能我之前說的太誇張了。 可能不是殭屍啟示錄這類的片子。 可能比較像警察搭檔片。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Just roll with it, just go with it please.
再忍一下,再撐一下就好。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
You know the kind: there's a white cop and a black cop, or maybe a messy cop and an organized cop. Whatever it is, they don't get along because of this difference. But in the end, when they have to come together and they cooperate, the solidarity that they feel, it's greater because of that gulf that they had to cross. Right? And remember that in these movies, it's usually worst in the second act when our leads are further apart than ever before. And so maybe that's where we are in this country, late in the second act of a buddy cop movie --
你知道這種片,通常有個 白人警察和黑人警察, 或者一個亂七八糟 和一個一絲不苟的警察。 不管什麼組合,他們都處不好, 因為兩者之間的差別太大。 但到了最後他們必須一起合作時, 兩者感到的團結力量更大, 因為必須跨越鴻溝,對吧? 要記得在這種電影裡, 通常第二幕的情況會更糟, 主角完全水火不容。 或許這正是我們國家現在的寫照。 警探搭檔片第二幕尾聲──
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
torn apart but about to come back together. It sounds good, but if we want it to happen, I think the responsibility is going to start with us.
被撕裂成兩半, 但就快要彌合在一起了。 說的好聽, 但是如果我們真的想讓它實現, 我想責任就從我們開始。
So this is my call to you: let's put this country back together. Let's do it despite the politicians and the media and Facebook and Twitter and Congressional redistricting and all of it, all the things that divide us. Let's do it because it's right. And let's do it because this hate and contempt that flows through all of us every day makes us ugly and it corrupts us, and it threatens the very fabric of our society. We owe it to one another and our country to reach out and try to connect. We can't afford to hate them any longer, and we can't afford to let them hate us either. Empathy and respect. Empathy and respect. If you think about it, it's the very least that we owe our fellow citizens.
所以這是我對大家的呼籲: 讓我們把這個國家再結合起來。 就做吧!不管政治人物、 媒體、臉書、推特 及選區重劃 那些東西如何分裂我們。 就做吧!因為這是該做的事。 就做吧!因為這仇恨和蔑視 每天在我們之間流竄著, 讓我們面目猙獰,腐蝕著我們, 威脅的也正是我們的社會結構。 我們應該給彼此及這個國家 伸出友誼之手與嘗試溝通的機會。 我們沒有本錢再仇視別人, 也沒有本錢讓別人仇視我們。 同理心與尊重。 同理心與尊重。 如果你仔細想想, 至少這是我們欠同胞的。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)