2012年5月14日星期一

艾略特•史伯岭（Elliot Sperling）：关于原因及目的





作者：Elliot Sperling（艾略特•史伯岭），印地安那大学中欧亚研究系
译者：黄潇潇 @xiaoxiaom
文章来源：《文化人类学》（Cultural Anthropology）学刊特刊
标题：On the Questions of Why and to What End
时间：2012年4月1日
原文网址：http://culanth.org/?q=node/532

围绕自2009年2月起在图伯特出现的自焚事件之浪潮争议不断，争论的话题包括自焚者的动机及这种行为的内在价值（或者说根本没有）。这些争论在中国境内和境外并行，有时成为平行不相交的讨论。而流亡博巴（藏人）社会的最初解读，是将自焚归因于失去希望和自暴自弃的绝望。这种解读在流亡生活自身的结构依赖性中最能得到理解；流亡生活常鼓励以悲悯为基础的诉请，以求打动恩人的良心。但一篇文章让这种思路戛然而止，其作者是图伯特事务的长期观察者克里斯托夫•白苏且（Christophe Besuchet）。根据自焚者的已知信息和说过的话，他指出没有证据显示沮丧和绝望；相反，现有的自焚者个人信息虽不完全，却指明这些行动出于坚决的政治蔑视和抵抗。

如果说流亡博巴是依照自身境遇来解读这些行为，那么几位在网上写作的中国自由知识分子也做了同样的事。他们想当然地认为，自焚博巴是在徒劳尝试唤醒当局的良心，冀望他们看到图伯特的苦难之深。这句评价就是一例：“任何自焚都只能说明自焚者对当局心存最后的善意幻想。”境外早期的一些评价也折射出类似观点，认为这些行为浪费生命，而且从根本上违背佛教教义。在这一点上，一位流亡博巴发言人坚决表明赞同《人民日报》上一位中国评论者的言论，后者谴责自焚者违背佛教要义。这种情绪相应地使一些人主张达赖喇嘛呼吁停止这种行为。而这当然会置他于尴尬的处境。若他的呼吁起不了作用，则可能使他的非官方权威遭到质疑。若有作用，则中国宣称他在操纵图伯特境内的抗议时，就更有口实可依。另一位倍受尊敬的喇嘛噶玛巴，在2011年11月公开呼吁勿再自焚，但自焚事件依旧持续。他尚未重申呼吁。有影响力的作家茨仁唯色起初抵制呼吁停止自焚，声称这样的呼吁不会减轻自焚的理由，但在2012年3月4日一位寡妇母亲自焚并留下四个孤儿后，唯色在继续保持尊重自焚者的同时，也呼吁停止更多自焚行为。然而自焚仍然没有停止。

汉人作家王力雄尝试清晰表述一种使博巴抗议超越自焚的方式，他认为自焚确已起到作用：它们鼓舞了博巴的勇气，并极大巩固了博巴在面对中国统治时的团结一心。这其中折射出对现状无比清醒的理解，远甚于认为博巴自焚只是为了打动中国官僚者之心的徒劳举动，或认为这是绝望之举的观点，后者实际上是源于说者自身的狭隘投射。（当然，与一些圈子里的想法相反，图伯特和图伯特问题并不占据中国大多数人的思绪，这点自不用说。）面对图伯特境内对自焚者广泛、正面的同情和支持，对其“不符合佛教教义”的批评并没有得到响应。一条匿名的博巴在博客上的留言或许更典型地体现了境内博巴对自焚的看法；肯定比其他观察者的投射给人的导向更典型：“试问手稍微刮破却大声喊痛的我们有这个胆量为自由事业献出生命吗？……是的，一想到自焚英雄们，我为自己天生的懦弱、胆怯和无用感到惭愧。”

王力雄和茨仁唯色都呼吁博巴超越自焚的策略。与此同时，两人都没有贬低自焚者，更不用说将他们刻画为背弃佛教教义。但在缺失以公民社会的选项来组织和平抗议与异议的大背景下，很难设想出可行的替代策略。自焚是一种独自、个人的抗议行为，只在刹那间即可付诸于行动，当局几乎没有机会阻止或扑灭抗议者所传达的信息。要中止当前的自焚浪潮，可能需要足以产生可比效应的替代策略，或者需要当局让出表达异议的足够空间。

2012年4月1日

链接:

断言自焚违背佛教教义，或者是浪费生命：
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/25/tibetan-deaths-violate-buddhism
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7662987.html
http://weblog.savetibet.org/2011/12/02/this-chinese-is-right-about-tibetan-self-immolation/~~V

王力雄的文章：
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30717&t=1

克里斯托夫•白苏且的文章这里可见：
http://www.rangzen.net/2012/01/28/beacons-of-resistance-not-desperate-acts/
（中文译文：是抵抗的灯塔，不是绝望的行动 http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/01/blog-post_29.html）

断言博巴自焚是妄图唤醒官方良心：
http://lhakardiaries.com/2011/10/19/how-about-some-respect/（向下滚动，可见笔者的意见）

对于牺牲和怯懦的意见：http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/12/blog-post_29.html

茨仁唯色的呼吁书：
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/03/blog-post_08.html


On the Questions of Why and to What End
Elliot Sperling, Department of Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana Universit
y
Among the controversies surrounding the wave of self-immolations inside Tibet that began in February 2009 are debates over the motives of those committing these acts and their inherent value (or lack thereof). These debates are going on both within and without the People’s Republic of China, at times as parallel, non-intersecting discussions. The first interpretations from the Tibetan exile community ascribed the self-immolations to hopelessness and suicidal despair, an interpretation that can be best understood within the structural dependency built into exile life, which often encourages pathos-based appeals to the consciences of benefactors. But this tack was largely brought to a screeching halt by one essay, written by the long-time observer of Tibetan affairs, Christophe Besuchet. Drawing on what was known about and said by those who committed self-immolation, he pointed out that there was no evidence of depression and despair; that on the contrary, available personal information on those committing self-immolation, though certainly not complete, indicated that the actions were undertaken as acts of strong-willed political defiance and resistance.
If exiles interpreted the acts according to their own circumstances so too did several liberal Chinese writing in cyberspace. There the assumption was that the Tibetans who committed self-immolation were uselessly trying to awaken the consciences of those in authority to the depths of misery inside Tibet. One example is this comment: “Any self-immolation can only illustrate the self-immolator’s clinging to a fantasy of the authorities’ ultimate goodwill.” This was also reflected in some of the early commentary from outside Tibet which held that these actions wasted human lives for nothing; that they were, moreover, fundamentally un-Buddhist. On that point one Tibetan exile spokesperson asserted his agreement with a Chinese commentator in the People’s Daily who had denounced the self-immolators as un-Buddhist. This sentiment in turn lead some to advocate that the Dalai Lama call for a halt to such actions. This, of course, was something that would have put him in an awkward position. Were he to call for such a halt to no effect, it might have implications for his unofficial authority. Were he effective he would provide fodder for Chinese claims that he pulls the strings of protest in Tibet. Another well-respected lama, the Karma-pa, did in November 2011 publicly call for an end to self-immolations, but they continued. He has not reiterated that appeal. After resisting appeals that she call for an end to self-immolation, stating that such calls would not alleviate the causes of self-immolation, the influential writer Tsering Woeser, while continuing to maintain respect for those who had committed such actions, also called for a halt to further acts after a widowed mother committed self-immolation on 4 March 2012 leaving behind four orphaned children. Nevertheless, acts of self-immolations have not stopped.
The Chinese writer Wang Lixiong, who has sought to articulate a way for Tibetan protests to move beyond self-immolation, has stated that the self-immolations have indeed been effective: they have galvanized Tibetan sentiments and greatly strengthened the Tibetan sense of unity in the face of rule by China. This reflects a far clearer understanding of the situation than ideas of Tibetan self-immolation as a futile attempt to move bureaucratic hearts in China or as an act of hopeless despair, rooted as they are, in their advocates’ parochial projections. (Of course, it should go without saying that, contrary to what is believed in some circles, Tibet and the Tibet issue do not occupy the thoughts of most people in China.) In the face of wide, positive sympathy and support in Tibet for those who have committed self-immolation, the “un-Buddhist” critique has not gained traction. One anonymous Tibetan blog comment is perhaps more typical of the way self-immolation has come to be viewed inside Tibet; certainly more typical than the projections of other observers might lead one to believe: “Might I ask if we, who scream when we scrape our hands even slightly, would have the guts to sacrifice our lives for the cause of freedom?… Yes, when I think of the heroes and heroines who have committed self-immolation I am ashamed of my inherent weakness, cowardice and uselessness.”
Both Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser have called for Tibetans to move beyond self-immolation as a tactic. At the same time, neither has denigrated those who have committed such acts, let alone characterized them as acting contrary to Buddhist principles. But in a milieu effectively bereft of civil-society options for organizing peaceful protest and dissent it has been difficult to conceive of a viable alternate tactic. Self-immolation is a solitary, individual act of protest that can be undertaken in an instant with little chance for the authorities to prevent it, or to shut out the protester’s message. An end to the current wave of self-immolations will likely require an alternative tactic capable of comparable effect or the ceding of adequate space for dissent on the part of the authorities.
1 April 2012
LINKS

For assertions that self-immolation goes against Buddhist tenets or is a waste of life see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/19/china-tibetans-self-immolation?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
For an assertion that self-immolation in Tibet is a futile attempt to awaken official consciences see:
http://lhakardiaries.com/2011/10/19/how-about-some-r-e-s-p-e-c-t/ (Scroll down to the author's comment after the post.)

For the comments on sacrifice and cowardice see:
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/12/blog-post_29.html



时间：

没有评论:

发表评论