I want to start by telling you two things about myself before I get into the full talk. And the first is that I've been writing about manners and civility for more than 20 years, as a book author and as a magazine columnist. The second is, my friends know to be very wary of inviting me over for dinner because any faux pas that happens at the table is likely to wind up in print.
我想先分享兩件關於我的事, 在我進入完整演說之前。 第一,我寫關於 禮儀和公民素養的文章, 超過二十年, 我是作家也寫雜誌專欄。 第二, 我的朋友都知道,若要邀請我 去吃晚餐,就得要非常謹慎, 因為飯桌上若有 任何失禮的狀況發生, 很可能會成為我的寫作題材。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So, I'm watching, I can see back there and I can see through the portals, too.
所以,我一直在觀察, 我看得到後排座位也看得到門口。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So, speaking of dinner parties, I want to take you back to 2015 and a dinner party that I went to. To place this in time, this was when Caitlyn Jenner was first coming out, shedding her identity as a Kardashian and moving into her life as a transgender activist. I wrote a column in People magazine at the time, talking about the importance of names and how names are our identity. And that to misuse them or not to use them erases us in a certain way. And especially with Caitlyn Jenner, I talked about Caitlyn, but also the use of her pronouns. Her pronouns.
說到晚宴, 我想要帶大家回到 2015 年, 我參加的一場晚宴。 這件事情的時間點, 是在凱特琳·詹納剛出櫃時, 擺脫她身為卡戴珊家族成員的身分, 開始跨性別運動參與者的人生。 當時我曾在《時人》 雜誌中寫一篇專欄, 論述名字的重要性, 以及名字代表我們的身份認同。 誤用或不去使用某些名字, 會以某種方式抹滅了我們。 特別是凱特琳·詹納的例子, 我談到凱特琳,也談到 怎麼使用她的代名詞。 她的代名詞。
So I'm at this dinner -- delicious, wonderful, fun -- when my host goes on a rant about Caitlyn Jenner. And she is saying that it is disrespectful for Caitlyn Jenner to force her to use a new name and to use these new pronouns. She's not buying it, and I'm listening, and because I do meditation, I took my sacred pause before I responded.
我在晚宴上,一切原本 很美味、很美好、很有趣—— 晚宴的主人轉而沒完沒了地 怒罵凱特琳·詹納。 她說,凱特琳·詹納 强迫她使用新的名字 和代名詞(去稱呼「凱」), 是很不尊重人的。 她不能接受, 而我聽著,因為我會做冥想, 在我回應之前,我刻意暫停了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And I reminded her that when she got married, she changed her name, and that she took the name of her husband. And that's the name all of us now use. We don't use it just because it's her legal name, but we use it because it's respectful. Ditto for Miss Jenner. She didn't buy it and we didn't speak for years.
我提醒她,當她結婚時, 她改了她的名字, 她用了夫姓。 我們現在都也用她的夫姓稱呼她。 我們用這個名字並不僅 因那是她的正式姓氏, 也是因為我們尊重她。 對詹納也是一樣。 她不接受,我們很多年 都沒有再說話。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So ... I am known as the Civilist. And it's probably a word that you're not that familiar with. It's not in common parlance and it comes from the Latin and the French, and it means an individual who tries to live by a moral code, who is striving to be a good citizen. The word "civility" is derived from that, and the original definition of civility is citizens willing to give of themselves for the good of the city, for the good of the commonwealth, for the larger good.
像這樣… 我被稱為文明主義者。 你們可能不太熟悉這個詞。 它不是個常見用語, 它來自拉丁文和法文, 意指一個人試圖遵守道德準則, 且努力要成為好公民。 「公民素養」這個詞就是源自於它, 公民素養的原始定義 是公民願意奉獻自己 以謀求城市的利益, 全體公民的、大我的利益。
So, in this talk, you're going to learn three new ways to be civil, I hope, and it will be according to the original definition of civility. My first problem is: civility is an obsolete word. My second problem is: civility has become a dirty word in this country. And that is whether you lean right or whether you lean left. And in part, that's because modern usage equates civility with decorum, with formal politeness, formal behavior. We've gotten away from the idea of citizenship.
所以,在這場演說中, 我希望,你們將會學到 三種更具有公民素養的方法, 而背後用到的定義 是公民素養的原始定義。 我的第一個問題是: 公民素養是個過時的詞。 我的第二個問題是: 在這個國家,公民素養已經 變成了一個髒字。 不論你在政治上傾左或右。 部分是因為, 現今將公民素養等同於禮儀, 等同於正式的禮貌、正式的行為。 但我們離其中的公民意識 概念越來越遠了。
So, let me start by talking a little bit about my friends on the right, who have conflated civility with what they call political correctness. And to them, callouts for civility are really very much like what George Orwell wrote in "1984" -- he called it "newspeak." And this was an attempt to change the way we talk by forcibly changing the language that we use. To change our ideas by changing the meaning of words. And I think my dinner host might have had some of that rattling around there. And I first personally understood, though, the right's problem with civility when I wrote a column about then-candidate Donald Trump. And he had just said he did not have time for total political correctness, and he did not believe the country did either. And I took that to heart, it was very -- The audience was very engaged about that online, as you can imagine. There was a thousand responses, and this one stood out to me because it was representative: "Political correctness is a pathological system that lets liberals dominate a conversation, label, demonize and shout down the opposition." So I think, to the right, civility translates into censure.
所以,讓我先來談談右傾的朋友們, 把公民素養和他們所謂的 政治正確性混淆了。 對他們而言,呼籲公民素養, 很像喬治·歐威爾 在《1984》中寫的—— 他稱之為「新語」。 意思是:透過強行改變 我們使用的言詞, 來嘗試改變我們說話的方式。 透過改變言詞的意思, 來改變我們的想法。 我認為,我的晚宴主人 可能多少因此感覺不安。 不過,我第一次親身了解到 右派對於公民素養的不滿, 是在我有篇專欄談到 當時還是候選人的川普。 那時他說, 他沒有時間做到完全的政治正確, 他認為這個國家也是如此。 我認真看待那句話,它非常—— 應該不難想像, 網民對此熱烈地議論。 有上千則回應,其中 這段引起我的注意, 因為它很有代表性: 「政治正確是一種病態的體制, 它讓自由主義者能夠主導對談, 將對立的人貼上標籤、妖魔化, 並淹沒他們的聲音。」 所以,我心想,對右派而言, 公民素養被視為譴責。
So that's the right. Now, my friends on the left also have a problem with it. And for example, there have been those who have harassed Trump administration officials who support the President's border wall. They've been called out as rude, they've been called out as nasty, they've been called out as worse. And after one such incident last year, even the Washington Post -- you know, left-leaning Washington Post -- wrote an editorial and sided with decorum. And they argued that officials should be allowed to dine in peace. Hm. "You know, the wall is the real incivility here. The tear-gassing of kids, the separation of families." That's what the protestors say.
這是右派的部分。 至於我的左派朋友, 也對公民素養有所不滿。 比如,有一些人, 他們曾騷擾恐嚇那些 支持總統在邊境建圍牆的 川普政府官員們。 他們曾經被罵無禮、 他們曾經被罵下流、 他們曾經被罵得更難聽。 在去年的一個衝突後, 就連《華盛頓郵報》—— 你們知道的,左傾的 《華盛頓郵報》—— 也寫了一篇社論, 站在禮儀的那一邊。 他們主張:應該要讓官員好好地用餐。 嗯。 「你們知道,築牆才真是的不文明。 孩子被催淚瓦斯攻擊、 家庭被強行地拆散。」 那是抗爭者的說法。
And imagine if we had sided, in this country, with decorum and courtesy throughout our history. You know, I think about the suffragettes. They marched, they picketed. They were chastised, they were arrested for pursuing the vote for women in the 1920s. You know, I also think about the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the father of American nonviolent civil disobedience. He was labeled as uncivil in his attempt to promote racial and economic justice. So I think you get a sense of why civility has become a problem, a dirty word, here. Now, does this mean we can't disagree, that we can't speak our minds? Absolutely not.
想像一下這個國家,若在歷史上 我們都選擇站在 守規矩和合禮儀的那一邊。 我想到婦女參政運動者。 他們遊行、他們在外抗議、 他們被譴責、他們被逮捕, 只因為他們在二零年代 追求女性投票權。 我也想到馬丁 · 路德 · 金恩牧師, 美國非暴力公民不服從運動之父。 當他試圖推動種族和經濟正義時, 他也被貼上了「無禮」的標籤。 我想,你們可以了解, 為什麼在此公民素養會變成 一個問題、一個不雅的字。 這是否代表我們無法持 反對意見、不能說出心聲? 當然不是。
I recently spoke with Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer. She's kind of the guru of civility in this country, and the executive director of a body called the National Institute for Civil Discourse. And she told me, "Civility does not mean appeasement or avoiding important differences. It means listening and talking about those differences with respect." In a healthy democracy, we need to do that. And I call that respectful engagement.
最近我和 嘉露蓮·洛肯斯邁爾博士談過。 在美國,她就像公民素養的權威, 也是「國家公民論述研究院」的執行長, 她告訴我: 「公民素養並不是一味姑息 或迴避重大的歧見。 它是要傾聽並帶著尊重 來談論那些歧見。」 在健康的民主環境中, 我們需要那麼做。 我稱之為「以敬相待」。
But civil discourse also needs rules, it needs boundaries. For instance, there's a difference between language that is simply rude or demeaning, and speech that invokes hatred and intolerance. And specifically of groups. And I'm thinking of racial and ethnic groups, I'm thinking of the LGBTQ community, I'm thinking of the disabled. We snowflakes call this speech "hate speech." And hate speech can lead to violence.
但公民論述也需要規則,需要界線。 比如,僅是無禮且貶低人的語言, 和掀起仇恨與不寬容的言論, 是有所不同的。 特別是針對某些族群。 我想到種族和民族性族群, 我想到 LGBTQ 族群, 我想到行動不便者。 我們這些容易感到被冒犯的自由派, 稱之為「仇恨言論」。 仇恨言論有可能導致暴力。
So, to that point, in the fall of 2018, I wrote a column about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. You may remember her, she was one of the women who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. And among the responses, I received this message, a personal message, which you can see here on the slide. It's been largely redacted.
所以,在 2018 年秋天, 我寫了篇專欄關於 凱瑞斯汀·布萊西·福特教授。 你們可能記得她, 她是其中一位控訴最高法院 提名人布雷特·卡瓦諾 性侵害的人。 在許多回應當中, 我收到這則私人訊息, 各位可以在投影片上看到。 內容已經被大幅地隱藏了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
This message was 50 words long. 10 of them were the f-bomb. And the Democrats were called out, President Obama was called out, and I was referred to in a pretty darn vulgar and coarse way. There was an explicit threat in that message, and that is why my editors at The Post sent it to authorities. This came shortly before the pipe bombs were sent to other media outlets, so everybody was really kind of on guard there. And the larger context was, only a few months before, five staffers had been killed at a Maryland newspaper. They had been shot dead by a reader with a grudge. "Shut up or else."
這則訊息有五十個字, 其中十個是髒話。 民主黨黨員被點名, 歐巴馬總統被點名, 我也被以一個 相當侮辱人的方式給提到了。 那條資訊中有個公開的威脅。 因此,我在華盛頓郵報的編輯 把訊息轉給了相關當局。 這是在管炸藥被寄到 其他媒體之前不久發生的, 所以每個人都相當警戒。 而更大的事件脈絡是,幾個月前, 一間馬里蘭報社的五個員工被殺害。 他們被一名含恨的讀者槍殺了。 「閉嘴,否則要你好看。」
And it was around that same time that a different reader of mine started stalking me online. And at first, it was ... I'll call it light and fluffy. It was around this time last year and I still had my Christmas decorations up and he sent me a message saying, "You should take your Christmas decorations down." And then he noticed that my dog was off leash one day, and then he commented that I had gone to the market. And then he wrote me one that said, "If anyone were to shoot and kill you, it would not be a loss at all." I wish that were the end of the story. Because then, a few months later, he came to my door, my front door, in a rage and tried to break the door down. I now own mace, a security system and a Louisville Slugger baseball bat.
大概在同一時間, 我的另一位讀者開始在網上跟蹤我。 剛開始的時候,情況… 我會說比較輕微。 然後大概是去年此時, 我還沒有撤掉耶誕節裝飾。 他發給我一則訊息說: 「你應該把你的耶誕裝飾撤下來了。」 有天他注意到我的狗沒拴好繩子, 接著他說我已經出門去市場了。 之後他寫了封訊息給我: 「如果任何人想要槍殺你, 這對任何人來說都不會是損失。」 我希望這就是故事的結尾。 因為幾個月之後, 他憤怒地衝到我正門口, 試圖破門而入。 現在我有防身噴霧、保安系統 和一根 Louisville Slugger 的棒球棒。
(Sighs)
(歎息)
"Shut up or else."
「閉嘴,否則要你好看。」
So, what's to be done to forestall civility from turning ugly, from turning violent? My first rule is to deescalate language. And I've stopped using trigger words in print. And by trigger words, I mean "homophobe," I mean "racist," I mean "xenophobe," I mean "sexist." All of those words. They set people off. They're incendiary and they do not allow us to find common ground. They do not allow us to find a common heart.
那麼,我們應該做些什麼 才能防止公民素養 變得難看、變得暴力呢? 我的第一條原則是使用和緩的語言。 在文章裡我不再使用觸發詞了。 所謂觸發詞,我指像是 「恐同症」、「種族主義者」、 「排外」 、「性別歧視者」。 這些詞, 它們都會觸發人們的情緒、 它們具有煽動性、 它們讓我們難以找到共識、 它們讓我們難以齊心。
And so to this point, when John McCain died in 2018, his supporters noted that he never made personal attacks. But his opponents agreed as well, and I though that was what was really noteworthy. He challenged people's policies, he challenged their positions, but he never made it personal. And so that's the second rule.
當約翰 · 麥肯在 2018 年過世時, 他的支持者指出 他從未做過人身攻擊, 而他的反對者們也同意。 我認為這是值得注意的。 他挑戰人們的政策、 他挑戰人們的立場, 但他從來不針對個人。 而這正是第二條原則。
So the problem of civility is not only an American one. In the Netherlands, there are calls for a civility offensive right now, and as one Dutch philosopher has put it, the country has fallen under a spell of "verhuftering." Now, this is not a word that I knew before and I did quite a bit of research. It loosely means bullying and the disappearance of good manners. It actually means much worse than that, but that's what I'm saying here. When you have a specific word, though, to describe a problem like that, you know you really have a problem.
公民素養並不是美國獨有的問題。 在荷蘭,現在有專有名詞 來指稱低落的公民素養, 如一位荷蘭哲學家所說: 這個國家已經被下了一個 名為 “verhuftering” 的咒語。 這個詞我之前不認識, 我做了相當多的功課。 它大致上可理解為 霸凌和禮貌的消失。 它的實際意思還要糟糕許多, 我言僅於此。 當你可以找到一個特定的詞 來描述一個問題時, 你知道你的確有個問題。
And in the United Kingdom, the [2016] Brexit vote ... you know, has divided a nation even more so. And one critic of the breakup called those who favor it -- I just love this phrase -- "the frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain." The frightened parochial lizard brain of Britain. That's personal. And it makes me miss "Downton Abbey" and its patina of civility.
而在英國,2016 年的脫歐投票, 你們知道,更是分化了一個國家。 一名批評英國脫歐的人 把那些支持脫歐的人稱作, 我超愛這個形容: 「英國驚恐狹隘的蜥蜴腦。」 英國驚恐狹隘的蜥蜴腦。 這樣便是人身攻擊了。 這讓我懷念起《唐頓莊園》 和片中客氣的假象。
But therein lies the third rule: don't mistake decorum for civility. Even if you have a dowager countess as fabulous as Dame Maggie Smith.
但這便是第三條原則: 不要錯把禮節當做公民素養。 即便有位老伯爵夫人 無懈可擊如瑪姬·史密斯女爵士。
(Laughter)
【別當個失敗主義者, 那太中產階級了。】
[Don't be defeatist. It's so middle class.]
So let me end with one last story. Not that long ago, I was at a bakery, and they make these amazing scones. So, long line -- there are a lot of scones. And one by one, the scones were disappearing until there was one woman in between me and that last scone.
讓我用最後一個故事收尾。 不久前,我在間麵包店, 他們有非常美味的司康。 排隊的人很多,司康也很多。 但是一個接著一個,司康不斷消失。 到我前面只剩一位女士時, 司康也只剩一個了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Praise the Lord, she said, "I'll have a croissant."
謝天謝地,她說:「我要可頌麵包。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So when it became my turn, I said, "I'll take that scone." The guy behind me -- I'd never turned around, never seen him -- he shouted, "That's my scone! I've been waiting in line 20 minutes." And I was like, "Who are you? I've been waiting in line 20 minutes, and you're behind me." So, I grew up here in New York, and went to high school not that far from here. And I may seem, you know, very civil here and so on, but I can hip check anybody for a taxicab in this room, on these streets. So I was surprised when I said to this guy ... "Would you like half?" "Would you like half?" I didn't think about it, it just came out. And then, he was very puzzled, and I could see his face change and he said to me, "Well, how about if I buy another pastry and we'll share both of them?" And he did, and we did. And we sat and talked. We had nothing in common.
所以等輪到我的時候, 我說:「我要那個司康。」 站在我後面的男子, 我本來絕不會轉過身看他。 他大聲說:「那是我的司康! 我已經排了 20 分鐘了。」 我當時想:「你哪位? 我也排了 20 分鐘, 而你排在我後面。」 我就在紐約長大, 我的高中離這裡不遠。 我也許看起來,你們知道, 很有禮貌之類的。 但我可以用屁股功和在場的 任何人,在馬路搶計程車。 我也非常訝異,當我對他脫口而出… 「你想要一半嗎?」 「你想要一半嗎?」 我想都沒想,話就這麼 從我嘴裡冒出來了。 他也愣了一下, 我看見他神情的變化。 接著他對我說: 「那我買個其他的糕點, 然後我們一起分享如何?」 他真買了另外一個糕點, 我們也一起分享了糕點。 我們坐了下來開始聊天。 我們沒有任何交集。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
We had nothing in common: nationality, sexual orientation, occupation. But through this moment of kindness, through this moment of connection, we developed a friendship, we have stayed in touch.
我們沒有任何交集: 國籍、性取向、職業。 但透過這個善意的瞬間, 透過這個聯結的瞬間, 我們牽起了一段友誼, 我們現在還保持聯繫。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Although he was appalled to learn that I'm called the Civilist after that.
雖然後來他得知我被稱為 文明主義者時相當驚恐。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But I call this the joy of civility. The joy of civility. And it led me to wonder, what is the good we forgo, not just the trouble we avoid, when we choose to be uncivil. And by good, I mean friendship, I mean connection. I mean sharing 1000 calories. But I also mean it in a larger way. You know, as communities and as a country and as a world. What are we missing out on?
但我稱之為公民素養的樂趣。 公民素養的樂趣。 它引導我去思忖一個問題: 當我們選擇無禮的時候, 在避免了一些麻煩的同時, 我們是否也錯過了美好的可能? 所謂美好,我指友誼、我指聯結、 我指分享一大卡熱量。 但也有更廣義的好處。 作為社區、作為國家、作為世界、 我們錯過了什麼?
So, today, we are engaged in a great civil war of ideas and identity. And we have no rules for them. You know, there are rules for war. Think about the Geneva Conventions. They ensure that every soldier is treated humanely, on and off the battlefield. So, frankly, I think we need a Geneva Convention of civility, to set the rules for discourse for the parameters of that. To help us become better citizens of our communities and of our countries.
現今,我們正身陷一場 重大的思想和認同內戰。 而我們沒有規則可循。 你們知道,戰爭是有規則的。 想想日內瓦公約, 公約確保每個士兵都得到人道待遇, 無論是在戰場上還是下了戰場。 直白地說,我認為我們 需要訂定公民素養的日內瓦公約 為時下的論述提供一套規範, 幫助我們成為社區 和國家中更好的公民。
And if I have anything to say about it, I would base those rules on the original definition of civility, from the Latin and from the French. Civility: citizens willing to give of themselves for the greater good. For the good of the city. So I think civility, with that understanding, is not a dirty word. And I hope the civilist will not become, or will not stay, obsolete.
如果關於這個公約 我有什麼要說的, 我會把所有規則建立在 公民素養的本意上, 源於拉丁語和法語的本意。 「公民素養」: 願意為了更大的利益、 為了城市的利益而奉獻自己的公民。 如果我們這樣理解「公民素養」, 它便不再是一個髒字。 我希望「文明主義者」 這個詞不再過時。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)