针对齐泽克新论（见下），我的评论：

 

Atheism serves apparently a quick WAYOUT for Zizek here; this is a kind of analysis he himself opposed in his early writings.

 

Without further sensitive/reflexive explorations, he seems now very easy to jump to conclutions/judgments like "What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post."
 
Perhaps, just like what Rorty said about Zizek in the 2004 Shanghai conference: he writes too fast...
 

1949年以来中国皇帝一览

转自

http://www.sohoxiaobao.com/chinese/bbs/blog_view.asp?id=250498

大中华佛国(1947----1953，1983)
先主石顶武 1947----1953 图谋叛乱，被人民政府处决。
后主石金鑫 1983 石顶武之子，1983年复国，旋被县公安局镇压。

 

道德金门皇帝
丁兴来 1981----1990 地处大别山，由于交通闭塞，直到称帝后十年才被发现并被乡政府镇压。

 

中原皇清国
正皇帝张清安 1982
副皇帝廖桂堂 1982 以皇清为年号.地处大巴山。

 

圣朝国
林文勇 1980----1982 地处大巴山仪陇山区

1982年地处大巴山的曹家元自称玉皇大帝，旋灭。

1980年地处大巴山的朱仕强自称皇帝，仅七日即被村书记带人灭了。

 

大圣王朝（1986----1988）
女皇晁正坤 1986----1988 地处胶东半岛。

 

万顺天国 （1990----1992）
李成福 1990----1992 地处豫西。自建安民党、万李起义军，自称唐朝后裔，妄图以农村包围城市的方式复辟唐朝帝制，定都西安。后被乡派出所3名干警灭了

 

齐泽克论美剧《24》

The depraved heroes of 24 are the Himmlers of Hollywood

The message of the TV series, that torturers can retain their human dignity if the cause is right, is a profound lie

Slavoj Zizek
Tuesday January 10, 2006

On Sunday, the fifth season of the phenomenally successful television drama 24 will start in the US. Each season is composed of 24 one-hour episodes and the whole season covers the events of a single day. The story of the latest series is the desperate attempt of the LA-based Counter Terrorist Unit to prevent an act of catastrophic magnitude and the action focuses on the unit's agents, the White House and the terrorist suspects.

The "real-time" nature of the series confers on it a strong sense of urgency, emphasised by the ticking of an on-screen clock. This dynamic is accentuated by technical tricks, from the use of hand-held cameras to split screens showing the concurrent actions of characters.
Almost a third of each episode is taken up by commercial breaks, which contribute to the sense of urgency: the breaks are part of the one-hour temporal continuity. Say the on-screen clock reads "7.46" before the break, we return to the series with the clock saying "7.51" - indicating the real length of the break, as if a live transmission has been interrupted. It is as if the continuity of the action is so urgent that it cannot even be interrupted for advertisements.

Such a sense of urgency has an ethical dimension. The pressure of events is so overbearing, the stakes so high, that they necessitate a kind of suspension of ordinary moral concerns; displaying such concerns when the lives of millions are at stake means playing into the hands of the enemy. The CTU agents, as well as their terrorist opponents, live and act in a shadowy space not covered by the law, doing things that "simply have to be done" to save our societies from the threat of terrorism. This includes not only torturing terrorists when they are caught, but even torturing members of CTU or their closest relatives if they are suspected of terrorist links.

In the fourth season, among those tortured are the defence secretary's son-in-law and son (both with his full knowledge and support), and a female member of the CTU wrongly suspected of passing on information to terrorists. (When her innocence is revealed, she is asked to return to work immediately and accepts.) The CTU agents, after all, are dealing with the sort of "ticking-bomb" scenario evoked by the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to justify torture (why not torture someone who knows the location of a bomb that is jus about to kill hundreds of thousands of people?).

The agents treat themselves as expendable, ready to put their lives at stake if this will help to prevent an attack. Jack Bauer, (the agent and central character, played by Kiefer Sutherland), embodies this attitude. He not only tortures others but condones his superiors putting his own life at stake.

In the fourth season, Bauer agrees to be delivered to China as a scapegoat for a CTU covert operation that killed a Chinese diplomat. He knows he will be tortured and imprisoned for life but promises not to say anything that might damage US interests. When he is informed by the ex-president of the US that someone has ordered him to be killed, his two closest CTU friends fake his death. Both terrorist and CTU agents operate as examples of what the political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls homo sacer - someone who can be killed with impunity since, in the eyes of the law, their life no longer counts. While they continue to act on behalf of the legal power, their acts are no longer constrained by the law. It is here that we encounter the series' ideological lie: in spite of the CTU's ruthlessness, its agents, especially Bauer, are warm human beings - loving, caught in the emotional dilemmas of ordinary people.

24 should not be seen as a simple popular depiction of the sort of problematic methods the US resorts to in its "war on terror". Much more is at stake. Recall the lesson of Apocalypse Now. The figure of Kurtz is not a remnant of some barbaric past. He was the perfect soldier but, through his over-identification with the military, he turned into the embodiment of the system's excess and threatened the system itself.

The problem for those in power is how to get people do the dirty work without turning them into monsters. This was Heinrich Himmler's dilemma. When confronted with the task of killing the Jews of Europe, the SS chief adopted the attitude of "somebody has to do the dirty job". In Hannah Arendt's book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the philosopher describes how Nazi executioners endured the horrible acts they performed. Most were well aware that they were doing things that brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. The way out of this predicament was that, instead of saying "What horrible things I did to people!" they would say "What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!" In this way, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: the temptation to be resisted was pity and sympathy in the presence of human suffering, the temptation not to murder, torture and humiliate.

There was a further "ethical problem" for Himmler: how to make sure that the executioners, while performing these terrible acts, remained human and dignified. His answer was Krishna's message to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita (Himmler always had in his pocket a leather-bound edition): act with inner distance; do not get fully involved.

Therein also resides the lie of 24: that it is not only possible to retain human dignity in performing acts of terror, but that if an honest person performs such an act as a grave duty, it confers on him a tragic-ethical grandeur. The parallel between the agents' and the terrorists' behaviour serves this lie.

But what if such a distance is possible? What if people do commit terrible acts as part of their job while being loving husbands, good parents and close friends? As Arendt says, the fact that they are able to retain any normality while committing such acts is the ultimate confirmation of moral depravity.

So what about the response to this hair-splitting? Some argue that at least the US is now more open and less hypocritical about its behaviour towards terrorist suspects. To this, one should reply: "If US representatives mean only this, why are they telling us? Why don't they silently go on doing it, as they did it until now?" What is proper to human speech is the gap between the enunciated content and its act of enunciation. Imagine a couple who have a tacit agreement that they can have discreet extramarital affairs; if, all of a sudden, the husband openly tells his wife about an affair, she would have good reason to wonder why he was telling her. The act of publicly revealing something is never neutral; it affects the reported content itself.

The same goes for the US's recent admission that it is using torture. When we hear people such as Dick Cheney making statements about the necessity of torture, we should ask ourselves why he has decided to make a public statement about it. The question to be raised is: what is there in this statement that made the speaker decide to enunciate it? This is 24's real problem: not the content itself but the fact that we are being told openly about it. And that is a sad indication of a deep change in our ethical and political standards.

幻想不能代替现实 程序应当先于实质———“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”之辩
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

责任编辑 魏英杰　 2005-12-31 8:20:45

新闻背景
大约在2005年5月间，民间防艾人士高耀洁女士收到香港岭南大学刘健芝、陈顺馨教授寄来的信件，通知她已入选“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”活动名单。据介绍，该活动总部设在瑞士，由刘健芝担任统筹人的中国区负责推选108名中国妇女。
七八月间，各地方媒体纷纷报道本埠有女性获诺贝尔和平奖提名一事，其中包括为公众熟知的王安忆、高耀洁等人。不过，早在7月份，王安忆女士便在报纸上明确否认获得提名的消息。
8月6日，高耀洁收到岭南大学发来的通知，邀请她参加2005年12月17日至20日在云南昆明举行的“中国和平妇女交流大会”，食宿费1000元，交通费另付，会后将赴云南丽江“参观旅游”。通知还询问每个代表是否愿意另行赞助，每赞助一名经济困难的和平妇女的交通食宿费为2000元。
这使得高耀洁开始有所怀疑，一个正规的评奖活动，怎么会向入选者要求赞助？并向主办方发信要求退出该活动。10月10日，“新语丝”网站刊出高耀洁教授再次声明退出该活动的录音整理稿，称这种活动基本是“一场骗局或闹剧”。
与此同时，2005年10月号《读书》杂志推出刘健芝、戴锦华、陈顺馨的三篇文章，“编辑手记”对此做出高度评价：“当争评活动将千千万万普通女性的故事呈现在我们眼前的时候，我们不是看到了这个世界里的真正的和平力量吗？这的确是‘寻常中闪耀的和平的希望’—————也是我们这个世界里惟一真实的希望！”
由此，这一活动究竟属于什么性质，中国区的评选过程是否存在程序不公，引起了公众注意，并引起了一场广泛的争议。

事件综述
10月14日，早报评论专栏作者王晓渔率先发表文章质疑“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”中国区活动，在题为《“批判知识分子”的超级幻想》的文章中，作者指出活动存在颇多程序上的问题。文章经由网络转载后，引起众多读者热议。
11月18日，《读书》杂志执行主编汪晖先生来稿对此提出不同看法，并认为“在对什么是‘现实’、什么是‘幻想’的理解上，我和那些指控‘批判的知识分子’‘超级幻想’的人的确站在两个世界里。”
11月22日，高耀洁在早报刊发《我为何退出“108名中国妇女争评诺奖”》一文，首次就此事在媒体上撰文阐述她之前参与该活动的过程以及为何最终坚决退出的原因，并反驳了汪晖的观点。
在整个事件中，早报评论版成为该事件主要讨论平台，持有各种不同观点的作者先后在早报发表文章进行辩论与反思。

恩想交锋
第一回合：“幻想”与“现实”之辩
“批判知识分子”的超级幻想
让人不解的是，王安忆女士早在7月份便在报纸上明确否认获得提名的消息……10月10日，在“新语丝”网站，也刊出高耀洁教授再次声明退出……更为匪夷所思的是，该活动的大陆地区联络人居然告诉高耀洁名单已经向全球公布，提名无法退出。时至今日，在该活动的主页上，王安忆和高耀洁的名字也赫然在目。
即使诺贝尔奖获得者，也有权拒绝领奖。但是，一个由批判知识分子负责组织的活动，居然无视被提名者的意愿，强行“绑架”她们参与这个活动，不知道《读书》编辑在什么意义上认为这是“以介入的方式、以自身的政治去推动对于什么是和平的全新的理解”。
在“被提名的妇女需要同意的三项原则”中，居然还出现这样的“霸王条款”，组织方一方面强调这次活动“并非为了赢取奖金”，一方面表示获奖者“将不会获得额外利益，也没有奖金的拥有权”，理由是“奖金将会用来成立一个妇女和平基金会，继续支持妇女推动和平的活动”。说得简单一点，被提名者只是一个“民工”，为组织方义务“打工”。谁拒绝的话，就会有拒绝“支持妇女推动和平”的道德不正确嫌疑。
这种活动究竟是不是“骗局”，尚无法得出定论；它的发起者有何用意，也无法妄加评判。不过，它在中国的行为可以称得上是一场“批判知识分子”导演的闹剧。早报评论专栏作者王晓渔10月14日A15

现实的幻想与幻想的现实
今年第10期的《读书》杂志刊发了刘健芝、戴锦华和陈顺馨三位有关“千名妇女争评诺贝尔和平奖”的文章，在上海的报纸和一些网络媒体上颇有些回应。不但有人质疑评奖的程序，而且也有人指责活动的实质。
这样的指控本不值得回应，但这个争评活动的意义却值得澄清。在我看来，这个活动的真正意义从一开始就不是“得奖”，而是呈现与这个秩序及其程序完全不同的世界的故事；这些文章从一开始就不是要表彰什么伟大人物，而是为了让那些一心要维护这些创造伟大人物的秩序的人不舒服；这个事件从一开始就不是要去维护这个现实及其秩序，而是要让这个最为现实的秩序及其程序暴露出它的虚幻性。有人跳出来跺脚，有人感到不安了，也就证明了这个“幻想”包含着尖锐的“现实性”。
在对什么是“现实”、什么是“幻想”的理解上，我和那些指控“批判的知识分子”为“超级幻想”的人的确站在两个世界里。这次评奖活动及其引发的争议正好构成了一个事件：如果这个事件能够让那些长久以来被压抑的人、声音、故事在这个片刻展现出来，我们就能够看到那些扰嚷之声所要维护的秩序是多么的不真实—————那不是肥沃的泥土，而是长不出和平之树的灰尘。《读书》杂志执行主编汪晖2005年11月18日A15

第二回合：程序与正义之辩
我为何退出“108名中国妇女争评诺奖”
我对整个活动的宗旨和理念是完全认同的，引起我的怀疑并最终决定退出的是该活动中经费使用、入选者资格、评选程序等的严重混乱状况。……我与刘健芝等人的分歧在于，刘认为上述问题只是“工作上的疏忽和遗漏”，而我认为这已经严重损害了活动的严肃和公正，使其蜕变为一场闹剧。
我只希望组织者能够正面地、直接地对下列疑问作出回应：一、公布活动期间所有收支账目，如果属于公益活动，这是活动的义务之一；二、公布投票过程，究竟哪些评委参与了投票，哪些以书面形式提交，哪些根本没有参与；三、公布评选过程中两名因被多次提名而退出评委成为入选者的姓名。
我希望汪晖、刘健芝等人不要再高谈该活动的伟大意义，因为对此我并无异议。但是，假借公益活动的崇高名义，却干着追名逐利的勾当，这样的例子现在又何止一二？著名民间防艾人士高耀洁2005年11月22日A15

天鹅落在泥塘里
我个人一直很关注女权运动与和平运动，一直有参与“医生无国界”组织的灾难救援等工作。……但是，身在德国的我在国内媒体吵开之前对此事一无所知。……至此，我才明白：这个协会和她们的这项活动在中国以外几乎完全没有受到公众的注意，可惜！
由于章程在具体实施上规定过于简单，所以，中国、蒙古地区提名统筹人刘建芝博士对资金的使用与候选人的选择就有全权。她只要对协会负责，而不必（从法律上讲也不应该）向任何其他人公布资金使用情况。向公众及捐款人公布相关的资讯，这是协会的责任，不是刘建芝博士的责任，也不在她的权力范围之内。另外，刘建芝博士也不必解释候选人挑选的程序。她委任了一个专家组来评审，是她重视自己的权力与责任的表现。
中国选区的评委与选出的候选人以及相关媒体之间的联系不是建立在共同理想、共同奋斗的基础上的，而是一般概念上的“关系网”。这些，都把这个本来很神圣、很纯洁的事情弄得乌七八糟、泥水连连。德籍华人张昭然2005年11月23日A15

为何历史总是如此相似
连一般的商业活动，都会注明“本活动的工作人员及其家属不能参加”之类的规则。组织者对此的解释却与当年惊人地相似，不外乎既已不再担任评委便公正了，入选者都“为和平活动努力，并不是为捞取政治本钱或个人私利”等等。这与当年的“长江读书奖”如出一辙，只需把“和平事业”、“女性主义”改为“中国学术界”即可。周筱赟2005年11月24日A15

程序不公让公益事业雪上加霜
由于中国区组织者的组织工作不够严密，也缺少相应的公开性和代表性，因而出现了一些问题。特别是整个活动未设任何专职、专任人员，且组织者未向提出质疑的被提名人出示完整的账目，这就有可能引起更多的怀疑。作为一项涉及众多人士的公共事业，其账目的公开性是其公信力的生命所在。尤其是评委和被提名人的代表性问题，似乎都不够全面，个别评委在公信力上的记录不佳，有的评委甚至最终成了被提名人，这就又犯了既当裁判员又当运动员的程序公正问题。
非政府组织的公益活动在发达国家非常普遍，在我们这里则还远不够普及，以致许多人全然不懂其运作方式。为数不多的非政府组织公益活动在程序公正和透明性上也屡屡出现问题，因而更让公益事业如雪上加霜。早报评论专栏作者顾肃2005年11月28日A15

第三回合：反思与自我反思之辩
我们为什么失去了信任
目前还没有任何信息表明，争议在其他地方也有发生……而在大陆地区，关于活动从程序到宗旨的质疑频频发生。关键是，一个妇女共同体的概念存在吗？妇女们的个体差异怎样才能整合到一个美好的共同体理念之下？而在和平奖纷争的失败例子下，我们置身其中的社会价值以及美好诉求，尽管已经被公共知识分子充分表达过，但如何把一个社会共同体培植起来，其行为本身充满了我们意想不到的歧义，并且在我们还没有站到一起之前，就已经四分五裂了。
这次大陆参与到世界性的妇女活动中，漏洞百出成为我们的文化征兆，这表明没有价值认同，就很难有社会共同体。……生为女人，并不能天然就是一个女性主义者，正如生活在有着现代化生产方式的社会，我们并没有天然地成为现代社会的公民，因为彼此的联系被彼此的不信任所中断。
这样的中断，造成彼此的隔绝，孤立无援是我们共同的处境。在没有秩序的现存秩序中，女性主义文本正如我们常常挂在嘴上的现代性文本一样，其实一直没有被打开。同济大学文化批评研究所张念2005年11月25日A

“批判知识分子”的反思意识哪去了
在许多我所深深尊重的当代中国知识分子那里，最大的“幻想”不是别的，恐怕正是“批判性”这个符号本身……我个人完全同意汪晖在这篇文章中所说的“让那些一心要维护这些创造伟大人物的秩序的人不舒服”的公共批判实践。但这样的公共批判实践本身，必须也是自我反思性的实践，并将自身开放给公共批判。
因此，我觉得有必要向两位作者提出的是：我们必须对自己所从事的批判实践时刻保有自我的反思，并将它开放于批判性的公共评论，否则就会坠入这样一个陷阱，即对自我认同中的那“批判性”之幻想作出最无批判精神之维护。澳大利亚墨纳什大学博士候选人吴冠军2005年11月29日A15

世界人權宣言 (Part two)

第十一條
(一)凡受刑事控告者, 在未經獲得辯護上所需的一切保證的公開審判而依法證實有罪以前, 有權被視為無罪。

(二)任何人的任何行為或不行為, 在其發生時依國家法或國際法均不構成刑事罪者, 不得被判為犯有刑事罪。刑罰不得重於犯罪時適用的法律規定。

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

第十二條
任何人的私生活、家庭、住宅或通訊不得任意干涉, 他的榮譽和名譽不得加以攻擊。人人有權享受法律保護, 以免受這種干涉或攻擊。

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

第十三條
(一)人人在各國境內有權自由遷徒及居住。

(二)人人有權離開任何國家, 包括其本國在內, 並有權返回他的國家。

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

第十四條
(一)人人有權在其他國家尋求和享受庇護以避免迫害。

(二)在真正由於非政治性的罪行或違背聯合國的宗旨和原則的行為而被起的情況, 不得援用此權利。

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

第十五條
(一)人人有權享有國籍。

(二)任何人的國籍不得任意剝奪, 亦不得否認其改變國籍的權利。

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

第十六條
(一)成年男女, 不受種族、國籍或宗教的任何限制, 有權婚嫁和成立家庭。他們在婚姻方面, 在結婚期間和在解除婚約時, 應有平等的權利。

(二)祗有經男女雙方的自由的和完全的同意, 才能結婚。

(三)家庭是天然的和基本的社會單元, 並應受社會和國家的保護。

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

第十七條
(一)人人得有單獨的財產所有權以及同他人合有的所有權。

(二)任何人的財產不得任意剝奪。

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

第十八條
人人有思想、良心與宗教自由的權利; 此項權利包括改變他的宗教或信仰的自由, 以及其單獨或團體、公開或秘密地教義、實踐、禮拜及戒律表示他的宗教或信仰的自由。

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

第十九條
人人有權享有主張和發表意見的自由; 此項權利包括持有主張而不受干涉的自由, 和通過任何媒介和不論國界尋求、接受和傳播消息和思想的自由。

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

第二十條
(一)人人有權享有和平集會和結社的自由。

(二)任何人不得強迫隸屬於某一團體。

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

第二十一條
(一)人人有直接或通過自由選擇的代表參與治理本國的權利。

(二)人人有平等機會參加本國公務的權利。

(三)人民的意志是政府權力的基礎; 這一意志應以定期和真正的選舉予以表現, 而選舉應依據普遍和平等的投票權, 並以不記名投票或相當的自由投票程序進行。

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

第二十二條
每個人, 做為社會的一員, 有權享受社會保障, 並有權享受他的個人尊嚴和人格的自由發展所必需的經濟、社會和文化方面, 各種權利的實現, 這種實現是通過國家努力和國際合作並依照各國的組織和資源情況。

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

第二十三條
(一)人人有權工作, 自由選擇職業, 享受公正和合適的工作條件並享受免於失業的保障。

(二)人人有同工同酬的權利, 不受任何歧視。

(三)每一個工作的人, 有權享受公正和合適的報酬, 保證使他本人和家屬有一個符合人的尊嚴的生活條件, 必要時並輔以其他方式的社會保障。

(四)人人有為維護其利益而組織和參加工會的權利。

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

第二十四條
人人有享受休息和閒暇的權利, 包括工作時間有合理限制和定期給薪休假的權利。

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

第二十五條
(一)人人有權享受為維持他本人和家屬的健康和福利所需的生活水準, 包括食物、衣著、住房、醫療和必要的社會服務; 在遭到失業、疾病、殘廢、守寡、衰老或在其他不能控制的情況下, 喪失謀生能力時, 有權享受保障。

(二)母親和兒童有權享受特別照顧和協助。一切兒童, 無論婚生或非婚生, 都應享受同樣的社會保護。

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

第二十六條
(一)人人都有受教育的權利, 教育應當免費, 至少在初級和基本階段應如此。初級教育應屬義務性質。技術與職業教育應普遍設立。高等教育應根據成績而對一切人平等開放。

(二)教育的目的在於充分發展人的個性並加強對人權和基本自由的尊重。教育應謀促進各國、各種族或各宗教集團體間的瞭解, 容忍和友誼, 並應促進聯合國維護和平的各項活動。

(三)父母對其子女所應受的教育的種類, 有優先選擇的權利。

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

第二十七條
(一)人人有權自由參加社會的文化生活, 享受藝術, 並分享科學進步及其產生的福利。

(二)人人對由於他所創作的任何科學、文學或美術作品而產生的精神和物質的利益, 有享受保護的權利。

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

第二十八條
人人有權享受一種社會的和國際的秩序, 在這種秩序中, 本宣言所載的權利和自由能獲得允份實現。

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

第二十九條
(一)人人對社會負有義務, 因為只有在社會中, 他的個性才可能得到自由和充份的發展。

(二)人人在行使他的權利和自由時, 祗受法律所確定的限制, 確定此種限制的唯一目的在於保證對旁人的權利和自由給予應有的承認和尊重, 並在一個合民主的社會中適應道德、公共秩序和普遍福利的正當需要。

(三)這些權利和自由的行使, 無論在任何情形下, 均不得違背聯合國的宗旨和原則。

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

第三十條
本宣言的任何條文, 不得解釋為默許任何國家、團體或個人有權進行任何旨在破壞本宣言所載的任何權利和自由的活動或行為。

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

世界人權宣言 (Part one)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948年12月10日第217A(III)號決議通過


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1948年12月10日, 聯合國大會採認世界人權宣言, 請求它的會員國公佈該宣言, 並 "在無政治的考量下, 在各級學校及教育機構裡, 傳播、張貼、研讀及解說其內容。"

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

序言
PREAMBLE
鑑於對人類家庭所有成員的固有尊嚴及其平等的和不移的權利的承認, 乃是世界自由、正義及和平的基礎,

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

鑑於對人權的忽視及侮蔑已發展為野蠻暴行, 這些暴行玷污了人類的良心, 而一個人人享有言論和信仰自由並免於恐懼和匱乏的世界的來臨, 已被宣布為普通人民的最高願望,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the commonpeople,

鑑於為使人類不致迫不得已鋌而走險, 對暴政和壓迫進行反抗, 有必要使人權受法治的保護,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

鑑於有必要促進各國間友好關係的發展,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

鑑於聯合國國家的人民已在聯合國憲章中重申他們對基本人權、人格尊嚴和價值以及男女平等權利的信心, 並決心促成較大自由中的社會進步和生活水平的改善,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

鑑於各會員國都已誓願同聯合國合作, 以促進對人權和基本自由的普遍尊重和遵行,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

鑑於對這些權利和自由的普遍瞭解, 對於這個誓願的充分實現, 有很大的重要性,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

因此, 現在,

Now, Therefore,

大會

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

宣告

proclaims

這一世界人權宣言, 作為所有人民和所有國家努力實現的共同標準, 以期每一個人和社會機構經常銘念本宣言, 努力通過教誨和教育, 促進對權利和自由的尊重, 並通過國家的和國際的漸進措施, 使這些權利和自由在各會員國本身人民及在其管轄下領土的人民中, 得到普遍和有效的承認和遵行。

THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

第一條
人人生而自由, 在尊嚴及權利上一律平等。他們賦有理性和良心, 並應以兄弟關係的精神相對待。

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

第二條
人人有資格享受本宣言所載的一切權利與自由, 不分種族、膚色、性別、語言、宗教、政治或其他見解、國籍或社會出身、財產、出生或其他身份等任何區別。 並且不得因一人所屬的國家或領土的政治的、行政的或者國際的地位之不同而有所區別, 無論該領土是獨立、托管領土、非自治領土或者處於其他任何主權受限的情況下。

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

第三條
人人有權享受生命、自由與人身安全。

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

第四條
任何人不得使為奴隸或奴役; 一怍形式的奴隸制度和奴隸現實, 均應予以禁止。

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

第五條
任何人不得加以酷刑, 或施以殘忍的、不人道的或侮辱性的待遇或刑罰。

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

第六條
人人於任何地方有權被承認在法律前的人格。

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

第七條
法律之前人人平等, 並有權享受法律的平等保護, 不受任何歧視。人人有權享受平等保護, 以免受違反本宣言的任何歧視行為以及煽動這種歧視行為之害。

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

第八條
任何人當憲法或法律所賦予他的基本權利遭受侵害時, 有權由合格的國家法庭對這種侵害行作有效的補救。

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

第九條
任何人不得加以任何逮捕、拘禁或放逐。

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

第十條
人人完全平等地有權由一個獨立而無偏倚的法庭進行公正的和公開的審訊, 以確定他的權利和義, 並判定對他提出的任何刑事指控。

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

现实的幻想与幻想的现实
东方早报
文 汪晖 责任编辑 魏英杰 刘景 单雪菱　 2005-11-18 2:06:24

编者按：今年10月14日，同济大学文化批评研究所王晓渔先生在本版发表评论专栏文章《“批判知识分子”的超级幻想》，指出此前为媒体广泛报道的“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”活动存在颇多程序上的问题。王晓渔认为，该活动“在中国的行为可以称得上是一场‘批判知识分子’导演的闹剧”。昨日，著名学者、《读书》杂志执行主编汪晖先生来稿对此提出不同看法。全文刊发如下：

今年第10期的《读书》杂志刊发了刘健芝、戴锦华和陈顺馨三位有关“千名妇女争评诺贝尔和平奖”的文章，在上海的报纸和一些网络媒体上颇有些回应。不但有人质疑评奖的程序，而且也有人指责活动的实质。

有个作者发表文章，先是把这个活动与什么“诺贝尔文学奖提名”相比拟，后是将这个活动称之为“批判知识分子的超级幻想”。作者容不得有人质疑或者挑衅这个秩序及其程序———哪怕这还仅仅是戴锦华所说的“温柔的挑衅”。你不妨问他：你到底要什么？什么才是你的“现实”？从文章的逻辑来看，他能够回答的大概除了最为现实的“秩序”，就是维护这个“秩序”的“程序”！就像一位哲学家说过的那样，在这个世界里，当有些人底气十足地告诉你什么是“现实”、什么是“幻想”的时候，他们不过是告诉你：什么也不会改变，什么都是不可能的，你们歇着吧。

这样的指控本不值得回应，但这个争评活动的意义却值得澄清。在我看来，这个活动的真正意义从一开始就不是“得奖”，而是呈现与这个秩序及其程序完全不同的世界的故事；这些文章从一开始就不是要表彰什么伟大人物，而是为了让那些一心要维护这些创造伟大人物的秩序的人不舒服；这个事件从一开始就不是要去维护这个现实及其秩序，而是要让这个最为现实的秩序及其程序暴露出它的虚幻性。有人跳出来跺脚，有人感到不安了，也就证明了这个“幻想”包含着尖锐的“现实性”。什么时候才能让他们安心呢？那大概就是将你打入“幻想”领域的时候———这样才能证明他或她的“现实”是惟一的现实；或者将你混同于公认的“无意义”的时候———这样才能将这样的声音打入另册。大概也就是为了这个目的，作者以曲解的、也是“最没有幻想的”方式，把对千千万万妇女及其代表的真实的生活的肯定，说成是对一次像他们所理解的那种“评奖活动”的“高度评价”。

然而，在围绕这个活动的争论之中，惟独听不到的是对诺贝尔和平奖及其结果的讨论和质疑。今年的诺贝尔和平奖授予了巴拉迪和国际原子能机构，我们没有听到这些论者的评论，大约很安心。在那一期的编辑手记中，我说过我从根本上怀疑这个奖的意义———这并不是对所有候选人的怀疑，而是对和平奖所代表的“和平”概念的怀疑。我尊敬马丁·路德·金，我尊敬图图和曼德拉，我尊敬特里莎修女。然而，当一个发动了战争的国家的领导人在无法打赢这场战争而不得不停火的情况下竟然获得了和平奖，这到底是对和平的确认，还是对和平的讽刺？巴拉迪和国际原子能机构在近期没有围着美国的战争政策起舞，理应得到人们的支持；然而，这个机构在战争前一次又一次的核查难道不曾被美国利用为战争的口实吗？这个机构对威胁今天整个世界和平的核秩序起到过多大的遏制作用？它可以核查伊拉克、朝鲜、伊朗的核设施，但能够核查垄断着核武库的霸权及其秩序吗？这个核查的程序对于这个霸权及其秩序构成了什么挑战吗？

这不是要苛责国际原子能机构，这一切远远超出了它的能力。我要说的不过是：即使在称赞巴拉迪和国际原子能机构的工作的同时，也绝不应该忘记这个机构所置身的基本秩序。这个最不具有“幻想性的”现实及其秩序和程序不是具有真正的幻想性质吗？也正由于此，那个被责备为“超级幻想”的活动所要呈现的千千万万普通妇女及其代表的世界，那个在平凡的工作中显示出的“和平”的意义，难道不是比那些吵吵嚷嚷的声音所要维护的“现实及其秩序”更具有“现实性”吗？

在对什么是“现实”、什么是“幻想”的理解上，我和那些指控“批判的知识分子”为“超级幻想”的人的确站在两个世界里。这次评奖活动及其引发的争议正好构成了一个事件：如果这个事件能够让那些长久以来被压抑的人、声音、故事在这个片刻展现出来，我们就能够看到那些扰嚷之声所要维护的秩序是多么的不真实———那不是肥沃的泥土，而是长不出和平之树的灰尘。

“批判知识分子”的超级幻想
——评“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”活动

作者：王晓渔

　　大概七、八月间，各地方媒体纷纷报道本埠有女性获诺贝尔和平奖提名，其中既包括为公众熟知的王安忆、高耀洁等人，也包括不为公众所知的女性，比如沈阳市大东区永丰社区党委书记、主任李军等。据称这是“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”活动的组成部分，中国有108名个人或组织入围，包括大陆81名，台湾18名，香港9名。对诺贝尔奖提名程序稍微有些了解的读者，都会知道这种提名“虚虚实实”。王蒙先生曾经连续获诺贝尔文学奖提名，提名者是全美中国作家联谊会会长、美国诺贝尔文学奖中国作家提名委员会共同主席冰凌。虽然两人交往多年，但每次提名新闻出来之后，王蒙先生都会到处躲记者，一副事不关己的样子。事实上，获诺贝尔奖提名并不是什么荣誉，那些“会长”、“主席”之类的头衔一点也不能证明提名的权威性，在国外你注册一个“银河系作家联谊会”都不是什么难事。
　　这种提名作为一种游戏，每年让中国公众“望梅止渴”，倒颇有娱乐价值。可是，“批判知识分子”也不甘落后，2004年第4期《天涯》杂志刊登了刘健芝等“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖专题”，2005年10月号《读书》杂志不仅推出刘健芝、戴锦华、陈顺馨的三篇文章，“编辑手记”还对此做出高度评价：“当争评活动将千千万万普通女性的故事呈现在我们眼前的时候，我们不是看到了这个世界里的真正的和平力量吗？这的确是‘寻常中闪耀的和平的希望’——也是我们这个世界里惟一真实的希望！”“惟一”、“真实”、“希望”，这三个词语把“争评活动”上升到一个前所未有的高度，仿佛其他知识分子的工作都是“无用功”，只有他们（她们）的这个活动才有价值。刘健芝在《天涯》撰文《在寻常中寻找和平的希望》，在《读书》则撰文《在寻常中闪耀的和平希望》，从标题的变化也能看出，经过一年的时间“希望”的光芒愈来愈强烈了。
　　我们不妨先看涉及这项活动的知识分子的身份：刘健芝是“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖联会”的中国及蒙古地区联络人，陈顺馨负责这个活动的具体联络事务，戴锦华和《天涯》前社长韩少功、前主编蒋子丹、《读书》主编汪晖均为大陆地区的“举荐与顾问委员会”成员（Advisory Committee For Recommendations）。再看一下获得提名的名单，除了前面提到的王安忆等人，还包括前《读书》总编辑董秀玉。或许会有人认为，董秀玉获得提名，《读书》杂志应该回避，不再介入这项活动。我无意对此深究，所谓“举贤不避亲”，一向是中国的传统美德。而且，仅此事件还构不成“闹剧”一说。让人不解的是，王安忆早在7月份便在报纸上明确否认获得提名的消息，称没有接到任何相关的通知。10月10日，在“新语丝”网站，也刊出高耀洁教授再次声明退出所谓“全球千名妇女争评诺贝尔和平奖”活动的录音整理稿，称这种活动基本是“一场骗局或闹剧”。更为匪夷所思的是，该活动的大陆地区联络人居然告诉高耀洁名单已经向全球公布，提名无法退出。时至今日，在该活动的主页（www.1000peacewomen.org）上，王安忆和高耀洁的名字也赫然在目。
　　即使诺贝尔奖获得者，也有权拒绝领奖，但是，一个由“批判知识分子”负责组织的活动，居然无视被提名者的意愿，强行“绑架”她们参与这个活动，不知道《读书》编辑在什么意义上认为这是“以介入的方式、以自身的政治去推动对于什么是和平的全新的理解”。即使所有的候选人都是出于自愿，也看不出这份名单与一般的劳模或三八红旗手名单什么根本区别。在“被提名的妇女需要同意的三项原则”中，居然出现这样的“霸王条款”，组织方一方面强调这次活动“并非为了赢取奖金”，一方面表示获奖者“将不会获得额外利益，也没有奖金的拥有权”，理由是“奖金将会用来成立一个妇女和平基金会，继续支持妇女推动和平的活动”。说得简单一点，被提名者只是一个“民工”，为组织方义务“打工”。谁拒绝的话，就会有拒绝“支持妇女推动和平”的道德不正确嫌疑。“三项原则”同时指出，“为了符合诺贝尔和平奖委员会评审规则，我们会从一千名妇女中抽签选出三位代表”。在这种“抽签”的和平事业中，其他997名个人或组织就成了群众演员。
　　这种活动究竟是不是“骗局”，尚无法得出定论；它的发起者有何用意，也无法妄加评判。不过，它在中国的行为可以称得上是“批判知识分子”导演的闹剧，“批判知识分子”对这项活动的高度评价更属于超级幻想。2005年8月27日，“全球千名妇女争评2005年诺贝尔和平奖”的研讨会在北京三联书店举行。戴锦华多次使用“温柔的挑衅”来阐述这次活动的意义，认为它构成对诺贝尔和平奖理念、主流社会精英价值观、主流社会历史观、女性主义自身的挑衅。在我看来，与其说这是“温柔的挑衅”，不如说是“温柔的调情”，它并没有撼动那些主流理念，只是在承认主流理念的前提下“挑逗”了它们。这种批判的“形象工程”，难道不正是对批判精神的“粗暴的挑衅”么？
　　（原载《东方早报》2005年10月14日）

Cultural Borders and Bridges: Europe and Asia

Japanese Studies Centre, Building 54,
Monash University, Clayton
3-4 November, 2005

Program Overview

Day One - 3 November 2005

09:00-09:30 Registration

09:30-09:40 Opening Remarks
Professor John Nieuwenhuysen AM

Session 1

09:40-10:40 Eurocentrism and Eurobashing: Is There a Way between Scylla and Charybdis?
Professor Johann Arnason

10:40-11:00 Break

Session 2

11:00-11:30 The Ambivalence of Modern European Civilization: British and French Culture, Economic and Political Modernity
Dr. Natalie Doyle

11:30-12:00 …and…: Doppelgänger as the Subject of Modernity
Mr. Dimitris Vardoulakis

12:00-12:30 Between Trauma and Melancholia
Dr. Christiane Weller

12:30-13:30 Lunch

Session 3

13:30-14:30 The Idea of 'Immanent Transcendence' and the Chinese Interest in Dewey and Habermas
Professor Shijun Tong

14:30-14:50 Break

Session 4

14:50-15:20 What Price Deconstruction? Reflections on a Certain Chinese Intellectual Resistance to the Impossibility of Closure
Dr. Gloria Davies

15:20-15:50 Zhang Binglin and Modern Chinese Historiography
Dr. Warren Sun

15:50-16:10 Break

Session 5

16:10-16:40 A Spectral Analysis of Contemporary Chinese Thought
Mr. Guanjun Wu

16:40-17:20 'The Chen Dengke Phenomenon'
Mr. Robert Irving

Day Two - 4 November 2005

Session 1

09:30-10:00 Between Geopolitics and Globalization, Empire and Nationalism: Russia’s Eurasian Questions
Professor David Roberts

10:00-10:30 In-Betweeness: Cultural Implications of the Term 'Euro-Asia' (A Ukrainian Perspective)
Professor Maria Zubrytska

10:30-11:00 Demarcations and (Dis)orientations: Cultural Choices in the East of Europe
Professor Marko Pavlyshyn

11:00-11:20 Break

Session 2

11:20-11:50 Bridging Europe and Asia via the International System: The EU-China Partnership and the EU Self
Mr. Cristian Brasoveanu

11:50-12:20 Living with the Outgroup: Effects of Media Exposure on Subjective Social Reality and Acculturation Attitudes of Chinese Immigrants in Australia
Dr. Shuang Liu

12:20-12:50 Windows to Other Worlds: The Impact of Western Education on the Lives of Indian Women
Dr. Reshmi Lahiri-Roy

12:50-13:50 Lunch

Session 3

13:50-14:50 A History of Korean Consumer Culture: Formation of Disciplined Modernism
Professor Myungkoo Kang

14:50-15:10 Break

Session 4

15:10-15:40 Gendered Construction of the ‘Audience of Winter Sonata’ and Its Possible Consequences between South Korea and Japan
Professor Kaori Hayashi

15:40-16:10 The Korean Wave on Japanese Shores: Will Winter Sonata Bring About a Thaw in Japan-Korea Relations?
Professor Alison Tokita and Ms. Alexandra Hambleton

16:10-16:40 Music in Fuyu no sonata: the Piano as a Bridge to European Culture in Borderless Musical Modernity
Professor Alison Tokita

16:40-17:00 Break

Session 5

17:00-17:30 'National Presentation' and Cultural Identity
Ms. Hiroko Hashimoto

17:30-18:00 Mirror’s Edge and Distant Gamelan: Constructing Bridges across the Rifts between the Bahasa Malaysian Population and the Nanyang Chinese in Malaysia
Dr. Annette Van den Bosch

The distincition of the Public and the Private IS an ideological construction.
So i'd like to use a Lacanian term: "extimate". can you guess its meaning? :-)

:-) i know this is controvertial:

"Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false."

actually that's very essential to Zizek's thought, not merely rhetoric expression. In his essay "The Spectre of Ideology", he elaborates it very thoroughly. If you're interested, i can send you the electronic vertion of this paper (PDF). :-)

cheers.

Actually, there is nothing wrong of being private. In my sence, being public is a fiction. It means being a part of the mass. The word mass comes from a Latin word massa, which means moldable. Jump into the public is dangerous. It's easy to lose oneself in others.

: ) "Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false."

英美杂志评出全球最具影响力的100名公共知识分子

乔姆斯基当选最伟大知识分子

田羽 编译 责任编辑 黄维嘉　 2005-10-21 1:41:15

英国著名的《前景》杂志为纪念创刊十周年，会同美国《外交政策》杂志进行了一次网络调查，评选全球最具影响力的100名公共知识分子。日前，两份杂志公布了评选结果，美国著名的语言学家诺曼·乔姆斯基被评为当代最伟大公共知识分子。
在2万张有效投票中，乔姆斯基共获得了4800张选票，两倍于位居第二的艾柯。现年70岁的乔姆斯基是当代最著名的语言学家之一，但乔姆斯基的影响力并不局限于语言学。近40年来，他不断抨击美国政府及其对外政策乃至整个西方民主制度，是西方知识界“左派”领袖。特别是近十年，乔姆斯基反对美国干预科索沃，反对美国偏袒以色列，揭露西方民主制度的虚伪和“思想控制”，反对针对阿富汗的反恐战争，反对推翻萨达姆政权，当仁不让地成为反战运动的领袖人物。正是这样一种“异见”的态度，得到了全世界知识分子的尊重。
“我并不关心这些，可能是我的朋友们投了我的票。”乔姆斯基在得知此消息后，向媒体表示道。但有评论者认为，乔姆斯基摘得桂冠不过是因为他的“反美”倾向恰好迎合了知识分子的口味而已。
根据这份名单，世界上第二伟大的公共知识分子是意大利著名作家、符号学家艾柯，其代表作包括小说《傅科摆》《玫瑰的名字》、美学著作《开放的作品》、散文集《带着鲑鱼去旅行》，他对待知识和创作的开放态度令人目眩。牛津大学公众理解科学教授理查德·道金斯、捷克前总统哈维尔和英国著名评论家克里斯托弗·希金斯分列三至五位。其他著名知识分子，比如德国著名哲学家哈贝马斯和著名印裔英国作家萨尔曼·拉什迪也进入前十。纽约时报专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼位居 16位。教皇尾随其后。
令人沮丧的是，年轻知识分子、女性知识分子和法国知识分子在榜单上的表现差劲。有评论家为年轻知识分子的缺席开脱———“因为他们还没有经历过重大事件”。然而法国知识分子似乎处境悲惨，尽管“知识分子”一词源于法语，但前40位的法国知识分子只有可怜的1位，甚至比秘鲁和伊朗都少。当然，这或许与大部分选票来自英美知识分子有关。
《前景》编辑古德哈特形容该活动是“一场室内游戏，并不完全是严肃认真的”，“它可以引起人们对理性生活的趋势作出讨论”。事实上，这并不是《前景》杂志第一次为知识分子制作榜单，2004年，该杂志评选了英国前100名公共知识分子，理查德·道金斯位列第一。

世界公共知识分子top100


由于《远景》和《外交政策》两刊联合推出，名单如下

1 乔姆斯基（美国）
2 艾科（意大利）
3 理查德·道金斯（英国）
4 哈维尔（捷克）
5 克里斯朵夫·海庆丝（美国）
6 保罗·克鲁格曼（美国）
7 哈贝马斯（德国）
8 阿玛蒂亚·森（印度）
9 贾德·戴蒙（美国）
10 拉什迪 （英国）
11 纳奥米·克莱恩（加拿大）
12 希林艾巴迪（伊朗）
13 赫尔南多·德索托（秘鲁）
14 比约恩·伦伯格（丹麦）
15 Abdolkarim Soroush（伊朗）
16 弗里德曼（美国）
17 教宗本笃十六
18 霍布斯鲍姆（英国）
19 保罗·沃尔福威茨（美国）
20 卡米尔·帕格里亚（美国）
21 福山（美国）
22 鲍德里亚（法国）
23 齐泽克（斯洛文尼亚）
24 丹尼尔·丹尼特（美国）
25 弗里曼·戴森（美国）
26 史蒂文·平克（美国）
27 杰弗里·萨克斯（美国）
28 亨廷顿（美国）
29 略萨（秘鲁）
30 希斯塔尼（伊拉克）
31 威尔森（美国）
32 理查德·波斯纳（美国）
33 彼得·辛格（澳大利亚）
34 伯纳德·路易斯（美国）
35 法里德·札卡里亚（美国）
36 加里·贝克尔（美国）
37 伊格纳蒂夫（加拿大）
38 齐努亚·阿契贝（尼日利亚）
39 安东尼·吉登斯（英国）
40 劳伦斯·莱斯格（美国）
41 罗蒂（美国）
42 贾格迪什·巴格沃蒂（美国）
43 费尔南多·卡多索（巴西）
44 库切（南非）
45 弗格森（英国）
46 阿秧哈喜阿里（荷兰）
47 斯蒂文·温伯格（美国）
48 朱丽亚·克里丝蒂娃（法国）
49 杰梅恩·格瑞尔（英国）
50 安东尼奥·奈格里（意大利）
51 库哈斯（荷兰）
52 提摩西·阿什（英国）
53 马萨·努斯鲍姆（美国）
54 奥尔罕·帕穆克（土耳其）
55 吉尔茨（美国）
56 卡拉达维（埃及）
57 小亨利·路易斯·盖茨（美国）
58 塔里克·拉马丹（瑞士）
59 阿摩司·奥兹（以色列）
60 拉里·萨默斯（美国）
61 汉斯·昆（德国）
62 罗伯特·卡根（美国）
63 保罗·肯尼迪（英国）
64 丹尼尔·卡尼蒙（以色列）
65 努赛伊贝（巴勒斯坦）
66 索因卡（尼日利亚）
67 凯马尔·德维斯（土耳其）
68 瓦尔泽（美国）
69 高行健（法国）
70 加德勒（美国）
71 詹姆斯·拉夫克（英国）
72 罗伯特·休斯（澳大利亚）
73 阿里·马兹锐（肯尼亚）
74 克雷格·文特尔（美国）
75 马丁·瑞斯（英国）
76 詹姆斯·Q·威尔逊（美国）
77 罗伯特·柏特南（美国）
78 斯洛特迪基克（德国）
79 卡拉甘诺夫（俄罗斯）
80 苏尼塔·纳拉因（印度）
81 阿兰·凡基尔克劳（法国）
82 樊纲（中国）
83 弗罗伦斯·温布古（肯尼亚）
84 凯佩尔（法国）
85 克劳西（墨西哥）
86 哈金（美国）
87 尼尔·哲申费尔德（美国）
88 保罗·埃克曼（美国）
89 杰龙·拉尼尔（美国）
90 乔顿·康威（美国）
91 Pavol Demes（斯洛伐克）
92 伊莱娜·斯卡里（美国）
93 罗伯特·库伯（英国）
94 哈罗德·瓦穆斯（美国）
95 普拉姆亚（印度尼西亚）
96 郑必坚（中国）
97 大前研一（日本）
98 王辑思（中国）
99 马哈布班尼（新加坡）
100 石原慎太郎（日本）

齐泽克评新奥尔良飓风的文章(20/10/2005)

The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
Reality and fantasy in New Orleans
By Slavoj Zizek


part 2


And exactly the same goes for the looting in New Orleans: Even if all the reports on violence and rapes had proven to be factually true, the stories circulating about them would still be “pathological” and racist, since what motivated these stories were not facts, but racist prejudices, the satisfaction felt by those who would be able to say: “You see, Blacks really are like that, violent barbarians under the thin layer of civilization!” In other words, we would be dealing with what could be called lying in the guise of truth: Even if what I am saying is factually true, the motives that make me say it are false.

Of course, we never openly admit these motives. But from time to time, they nonetheless pop up in our public space in a censored form, in the guise of denegation: Once evoked as an option, they are then immediately discarded. Recall the recent comments by William Bennett, the compulsive gambler and author of The Book of Virtues, on his call-in program “Morning in America”: “But I do know that it ‘s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.” The White House spokesman immediately reacted: “The president believes the comments were not appropriate.” Two days later, Bennett qualified his statement: “I was putting a hypothetical proposition … and then said about it, it was morally reprehensible to recommend abortion of an entire group of people. But this is what happens when you argue that ends can justify the means.” This is exactly what Freud meant when he wrote that the Unconscious knows no negation: The official (Christian, democratic … ) discourse is accompanied and sustained by a whole nest of obscene, brutal racist and sexist fantasies, which can only be admitted in a censored form.

But we are not dealing here only with good old racism. Something more is at stake, a fundamental feature of the emerging “global” society. On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit. Twelve years earlier, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9 announced the “happy ’90s,” the Francis Fukuyama dream of the “end of history”: the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast, 9/11 is the main symbol of the end of the Clintonite happy ’90s, of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. The rise of the populist New Right is just the most prominent example of the urge to raise new walls.

A couple of years ago, an ominous decision of the European Union passed almost unnoticed: a plan to establish an all-European border police force to secure the isolation of the Union territory, so as to prevent the influx of the immigrants. This is the truth of globalization: the construction of new walls safeguarding the prosperous Europe from a flood of immigrants. One is tempted to resuscitate here the old Marxist “humanist” opposition of “relations between things” and “relations between persons”: In the much celebrated free circulation opened up by the global capitalism, it is “things” (commodities) which freely circulate, while the circulation of “persons” is more and more controlled. We are thus not dealing with “globalization as an unfinished project,” but with a true “dialectics of globalization.” The segregation of the people is the reality of economic globalization. This new racism of the developed world is in a way much more brutal than the previous one: Its implicit legitimization is neither naturalist (the “natural” superiority of the developed West) nor culturalist (we in the West also want to preserve our cultural identity). Rather, it ‘s an unabashed economic egotism—the fundamental divide is the one between those included into the sphere of (relative) economic prosperity and those excluded from it.

In the beginning of October 2005, the Spanish police, who have dealt with the problem of desperate African migrants trying to penetrate the small Spanish territory across Gibraltar with lethal force, displayed their plans to build a wall between the Spanish and Moroccan border. The images presented—a complex structure with all the latest electronic equipment—bore an uncanny resemblance to those of the Berlin Wall, only with the opposite motive, designed to prevent people from coming in, not getting out. The cruel irony is that it is the government of Zapatero, arguably the most anti-racist and tolerant in Europe, that is forced to adopt these measures of segregation—a clear sign of the limits of the multiculturalist “tolerant” approach which preaches open borders and acceptance of Others. It is thus becoming clear that the solution is not “tear down the walls and let them all in,” the easy, empty demand often put forth by soft-hearted liberal “radicals.” Rather, the real solution is to tear down the true wall, not the police one, but the social-economic one: To change society so that people will no longer desperately try to escape their own world.

This brings us back to rumours and “reports” about “subjects supposed to loot and rape:” New Orleans is one of those cities within the United States most heavily marked by the internal wall that separates the affluent from ghettoized blacks. And it is about those on the other side of the wall that we fantasize: More and more, they live in another world, in a blank zone that offers itself as a screen for the projection of our fears, anxieties and secret desires. The “subject supposed to loot and rape” is on the other side of the Wall—this is the subject about whom Bennett can afford to make his slips of the tongue and confess in a censored mode his murderous dreams. More than anything else, the rumors and fake reports from the aftermath of Katrina bear witness to the deep class division of American society.


Slavoj Žižek, a philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany. Among other books, he is the author of The Fragile Absolute and Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?

The Subject Supposed to Loot and Rape
Reality and fantasy in New Orleans
By Slavoj Zizek


part 1


According to a well-known anecdote, anthropologists studying “primitives” who supposedly held certain superstitious beliefs (that they descend from a fish or from a bird, for example) asked them directly whether they “really” believed such things. They answered: “Of course not—we ‘re not stupid! But I was told that some of our ancestors actually did believe that.” In short, they transferred their belief onto another.

We do the same thing with our children by going through the ritual of Santa Claus. Since our children (are supposed to) believe in him and we do not want to disappoint them, they pretend to believe so as not to disappoint us by puncturing our belief in their naivety (and to get the presents, of course). Isn’t this also the usual excuse of the mythical crooked politician who turns honest? “I cannot disappoint the ordinary people who believe in me.” Furthermore, this need to find another who “really believes” is also what propels us to stigmatize the Other as a (religious or ethnic) “fundamentalist.” In an uncanny way, some beliefs always seem to function “at a distance.” In order for the belief to function, there has to be some ultimate guarantor of it, and yet this guarantor is always deferred, displaced, never present in persona. The point, of course, is that this other subject who directly believes does not need to actually exist for the belief to be operative: It is enough precisely to presuppose his existence, i.e. to believe in it, either in the guise of the primitive Other or in the guise of the impersonal “one” (“one believes…”).

The events in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck the city provide a new addition to this series of “subjects supposed to…”—the subject supposed to loot and rape. We all remember the reports on the disintegration of public order, the explosion of black violence, rape and looting. However, later inquiries demonstrated that, in the large majority of cases, these alleged orgies of violence did not occur: Non-verified rumors were simply reported as facts by the media. For example, on September 3, the Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department told the New York Times about conditions at the Convention Center: “The tourists are walking around there, and as soon as these individuals see them, they ‘re being preyed upon. They are beating, they are raping them in the streets.” In an interview just weeks later, he conceded that some of his most shocking statements turned out to be untrue: “We have no official reports to document any murder. Not one official report of rape or sexual assault.”

The reality of poor blacks, abandoned and left without means to survive, was thus transformed into the specter of blacks exploding violently, of tourists robbed and killed on streets that had slid into anarchy, of the Superdome ruled by gangs that were raping women and children. These reports were not merely words, they were words that had precise material effects: They generated fears that caused some police officers to quit and led the authorities to change troop deployments, delay medical evacuations and ground helicopters. Acadian Ambulance Company, for example, locked down its cars after word came that armed robbers had looted all of the water from a firehouse in Covington—a report that proved totally untrue.

Of course, the sense of menace had been ignited by genuine disorder and violence: Looting, ranging from base thievery to foraging for the necessities of life, did occur after the storm passed over New Orleans. However, the (limited) reality of crimes in no way exonerates “reports” on the total breakdown of law and order—not because these reports were “exaggerated,” but for a much more radical reason. Jacques Lacan claimed that, even if the patient’s wife is really sleeping around with other men, the patient ‘s jealousy is still to be treated as a pathological condition. In a homologous way, even if rich Jews in early 1930s Germany “really” had exploited German workers, seduced their daughters and dominated the popular press, the Nazis ’ anti-Semitism would still have been an emphatically “untrue,” pathological ideological condition. Why? Because the causes of all social antagonisms were projected onto the “Jew”—an object of perverted love-hatred, a spectral figure of mixed fascination and disgust.