龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者第七十八期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類社會，只有強(qiáng)化交談、重建溝通倫理，才能獲得文化新生的力量。這不是誰的理論，而是每個人都應(yīng)實(shí)踐的活動。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對話海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請他對話一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長谷之水，四面而出。

瑁里斯·塞姆韋爾教授（Professor Maurice Samuels）

美國耶魯大學(xué)法語教授

龔鵬程教授：您好。法國崇尚普遍主義，這意味著國家把權(quán)利賦予給個人，而不是民族或宗教群體。 一些政治左翼人士認(rèn)為，這否認(rèn)了少數(shù)群體經(jīng)常受到歧視的現(xiàn)實(shí)，影響了少數(shù)群體參與公共生活。 您對這個問題有什么看法？

瑁里斯·塞姆韋爾：龔教授，您好。從理論上講，普遍主義意味著同樣的法律適用于所有人，不分種族、宗教、性別等。許多國家在這個意義上，認(rèn)為自己是普遍主義者。但在法國，普遍主義有了更具體的定義。

這意味著法國政府只賦予個人權(quán)利，而不是群體，并且個人必須擺脫所有特殊性才能行使這些權(quán)利。人們常說，法國的普遍主義模式需要同化。這與更加多元化的美國普遍主義模式形成鮮明對比，在那種模式中，少數(shù)群體可以要求集體權(quán)利。

法國的左派經(jīng)常抱怨普遍主義被用來歧視少數(shù)族裔——例如，最近的立法規(guī)定在公立學(xué)校佩戴某些宗教差異標(biāo)志是非法的。在法國，未能在政治層面承認(rèn)少數(shù)群體的差異，也使得少數(shù)群體在感到自己作為一個群體受到歧視時很難要求補(bǔ)救。

在我的《差異的權(quán)利：法國普遍主義和猶太人》一書中，我追溯了法國普遍主義的歷史，并表明它并不總是如此敵視少數(shù)族裔差異。

例如，當(dāng)法國革命者在1791 年解放猶太人時，他們并沒有要求猶太人放棄他們的宗教或文化差異以換取權(quán)利。在整個 19 世紀(jì)的大部分時間里，法國文化對宗教差異的公開表現(xiàn)非常開放。

由于特定的歷史原因，這種情況在20 世紀(jì)初發(fā)生了變化，這與努力消除天主教會在政治生活中的影響有關(guān)。但我認(rèn)為，恢復(fù)普遍主義的歷史，并強(qiáng)調(diào)少數(shù)族裔差異應(yīng)被重視而不是被拒絕時，才有可能幫助法國人解決他們目前關(guān)于少數(shù)族裔的一些困境。

In theory, universalism means that the same law holds for all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. Many countries consider themselves universalist in this sense. But in France, universalism has taken on a more specific definition. It has come to mean that the French state only accords rights to individuals, not groups, and that the individual must shed all particularities in order to exercise those rights. It is often said that the French model of universalism demands assimilation. This contrasts with the more pluralistic American model of universalism, in which minority groups can claim collective rights. The left in France often complains that universalism has been used to discriminate against minorities—for instance, recent legislation making it illegal to wear certain signs of religious difference in public schools. The failure to recognize minority difference on the political level in France also makes it difficult for minorities groups to claim redress when they feel they have been discriminated against as a group. In my book, The Right to Difference: French Universalism and the Jews, I trace the history of universalism in France and show that it has not always been so hostile to minority difference. For instance, when the French revolutionaries emancipated the Jews in 1791, they did not ask the Jews to shed their religious or cultural differences in return for rights. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, French culture was very open to public manifestations of religious difference. This changed at the start of the 20th century for specific historical reasons having to do with the effort to remove the influence of the Catholic Church from political life. But I think that recovering the history of universalism and highlighting moments when minority difference was valued rather than rejected, might help the French work through some of their current dilemmas regarding minorities.

龔鵬程教授：您為《時代》雜志撰寫了一篇關(guān)于 19 世紀(jì)法國霍亂爆發(fā)的評論文章。請問霍亂疫情如何導(dǎo)致了法國社會的不平等以及政治經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展？

瑁里斯·塞姆韋爾：1832 年 3 月，霍亂襲擊了巴黎。幾個月內(nèi)，超過 20,000 人死亡，這個數(shù)目約占法國首都人口的 2%。人們有可能會突然出現(xiàn)病征，所以街上會出現(xiàn)人們突然倒在地上。伴隨著大量關(guān)于疾病原因的錯誤信息，恐慌也隨之而來。

因?yàn)樵S多富人在一出現(xiàn)危險跡象的時候就逃離了這座城市，所以使得霍亂看起來就是在以窮人為目標(biāo)。城里掙扎著的群眾認(rèn)為這是富人故意毒害他們，而上層階級則指控窮人傳播疾病。

這是法國工業(yè)革命的開始。大量工人涌入這座城市，試圖在工廠找到工作。社會不平等早已經(jīng)是一個問題，但霍亂似乎放大了它，并使法國社會日益增長的階級仇恨浮出水面。當(dāng)一名左翼政治家在 6 月死于霍亂，而政府拒絕為他舉行國葬時，巴黎近郊的工人階級展開了強(qiáng)烈的抗議。

許多讀者認(rèn)為維克多·雨果的小說《悲慘世界》里的故事是發(fā)生在法國大革命期間，但它實(shí)際上描述的是這場在1832 年霍亂流行期間失敗的起義。正如我在《公爵夫人的背叛》一書中所述，疫情帶來的混亂，也促使以德貝里公爵夫人為首的右翼武裝分子企圖在法國西部發(fā)動保皇黨起義。

路易-菲利普國王的政府設(shè)法平息了兩次起義，但政治仇恨只會變得更糟，并在隨后的幾十年里又引發(fā)了幾次革命。

Cholera struck Paris in March of 1832. Within a few months, more than 20,000 people died—about 2 percent of the population of the French capital. The symptoms could come on so suddenly that people dropped dead in the streets. Panic ensued along with a great deal of misinformation about the causes of the disease. Since many rich people fled the city at the first signs of danger, cholera seemed to target the poor. The struggling masses of the city thought that the rich were deliberately trying to poison them, while the upper classes blamed the poor for spreading the disease. This was the beginning of the industrial revolution in France and large numbers of laborers had flooded the city trying to find work in factories. Social inequality was already a problem, but cholera seemed to magnify it and to bring the growing class animosities in French society to the surface. When a left-wing politician died of cholera in June, and the government refused to give him a state funeral, barricades went up in the working-class neighborhoods of Paris. Many readers think that Victor Hugo’s novel Les Misérables takes place during the French Revolution, but it actually describes this failed revolt during the cholera epidemic of 1832. As I recount in my book The Betrayal of the Duchess, the chaos brought on by the epidemic also spurred right-wing militants, led by the duchesse de Berry, to attempt a royalist insurrection in the west of France. The government of King Louis-Philippe managed to quash both revolts, but political animosities only grew worse, leading to several more revolutions in the decades that followed.

龔鵬程教授：現(xiàn)實(shí)中，我們可以看到一些觀點(diǎn)或文字明顯帶有對猶太人懷有敵意和歧視。媒體和政界也經(jīng)常討論對以色列的批評是否是反猶主義，而這個問題至今也沒有確定答案。作為反猶太主義的學(xué)者和專家，您對此有何看法？

瑁里斯·塞姆韋爾：事實(shí)上，對于當(dāng)面對以色列或反猶太復(fù)國主義的批評是否應(yīng)被視為反猶主義這一關(guān)鍵問題時，許多學(xué)者們都存在著分歧。我想大多數(shù)人都會贊同：對以色列具體政策的批評，并不是天生的反猶太主義。同時我也認(rèn)為大多數(shù)人都會贊同：以對猶太人的傳統(tǒng)負(fù)面刻板印象（例如稱以色列人嗜血）來批評以色列是反猶主義的。

當(dāng)批評者說以色列無權(quán)作為猶太人的民族家園而存在時，問題將會變得更加復(fù)雜。一些人很快譴責(zé)這些批評者是反猶主義者，因?yàn)樗麄儗Υ陨械姆绞脚c其他國家不同——包括大多數(shù)擁有民族宗教的阿拉伯國家。

我同意以色列不應(yīng)受到與其他國家不同的待遇，只要有國家，猶太人也同樣有權(quán)擁有一個。但我也認(rèn)為，給以色列的批評者貼上反猶標(biāo)簽，通常是沒有幫助的。雖然一些批評者很可能對猶太人懷有負(fù)面情緒，但其他人本身就是猶太人，且認(rèn)為他們是在以正義的名義行事。即使我不同意他們的觀點(diǎn)，我也尊重他們的觀點(diǎn)，我寧愿與我的對手爭論，也不愿給他們貼上標(biāo)簽來反駁他們。

Indeed, scholars are divided on the crucial question of when criticism of Israel, or anti-Zionism, should be considered antisemitic. I think most would agree that criticism of Israel’s specific policies is not inherently antisemitic. And I think most would agree that criticism of Israel that marshals traditional negative stereotypes of Jews—for instance, calling Israelis blood-thirsty—is antisemitic. The question becomes more complicated when critics say that Israel has no right to exist as the national homeland of the Jewish people. Some are quick to denounce these critics as antisemitic because they are treating Israel differently from other nations—including most Arab countries that have a national religion. I agree that Israel should not be treated differently from other countries, and that as long as there are nations, the Jewish people have a right to one. But I also think that it is usually not helpful to label critics of Israel as antisemitic. While some critics very well might harbor negative feelings for Jews, others are Jewish themselves, and believe they are acting in the name of justice. I respect their views even if I disagree with them, and I would rather argue with my opponents than dismiss them with labels.

龔鵬程教授：您擔(dān)任“耶魯大學(xué)反猶太主義研究項(xiàng)目中心”首任主任。該中心成立于2011年，當(dāng)時耶魯大學(xué)剛剛關(guān)閉了一個類似研究中心。您能簡單介紹一下您這個中心的歷史嗎？該中心的目的是什么，它的主要活動有哪些？

瑁里斯·塞姆韋爾：耶魯大學(xué)反猶太主義研究項(xiàng)目 (YPSA) 成立于 2011 年。它取代了一個由非耶魯大學(xué)教授且離開大學(xué)的人經(jīng)營的類似中心。

自2000 年以來，反猶太主義一直呈上升趨勢，但在過去幾年中，它已成為包括美國在內(nèi)的世界各地的主要問題。

我指導(dǎo)的項(xiàng)目致力于了解從古至今針對猶太人的仇恨和歧視的原因和表現(xiàn)。雖然早期的計劃主要關(guān)注當(dāng)代反猶太主義，但我堅(jiān)信，如果不從歷史的角度看待它們，我們就無法理解當(dāng)前對猶太人的威脅。因此，我指導(dǎo)的項(xiàng)目組織了專門針對反猶太主義的整個歷史以及當(dāng)前危機(jī)的講座和會議。

我們向在歷史、文學(xué)、心理學(xué)、社會學(xué)等各個領(lǐng)域研究反猶太主義方面的教職員工和學(xué)生提供研究資助。我們還定期聘請了教授反猶太主義本科課程的博士后助理。我們的大部分課程現(xiàn)在都在Zoom 上，所以我鼓勵人們可以遠(yuǎn)程參加。如果在 YPSA 網(wǎng)站上注冊到我們的郵件列表中，還可以在其中查看過去活動的錄音。

The Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism (YPSA) was founded in 2011. It replaced a similar center that was run by someone who was not a Yale professor and who left the university. Antisemitism has been on the rise since 2000, but in the last few years, it has become a major problem around the world, including in the United States. The program I direct is dedicated to understanding the causes and manifestations of hatred and discrimination directed against Jews from antiquity to the present. Whereas the earlier program was mainly focused on contemporary antisemitism, it is my firm belief that we cannot understand current threats against Jews without seeing them in historical perspective. So the program I direct organizes lectures and conferences devoted to the entire history of antisemitism as well as to the current crisis. We give research grants to faculty and students who are studying aspects of antisemitism in a variety of fields—history, literature, psychology, sociology, etc. We also regularly hire postdoctoral associates who teach undergraduate courses on antisemitism. Most of our programs are now on Zoom, so I encourage people to attend remotely. Please sign up for our mailing list on the YPSA website, where you can also check out recordings of past events.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺北，臺灣師范大學(xué)博士，當(dāng)代著名學(xué)者和思想家。著作已出版一百五十多本。

辦有大學(xué)、出版社、雜志社、書院等，并規(guī)劃城市建設(shè)、主題園區(qū)等多處。講學(xué)于世界各地。并在北京、上海、杭州、臺北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過書法展。現(xiàn)為中國孔子博物館名譽(yù)館長、美國龔鵬程基金會主席。