over 8 years ago

我以為林驤華這段錯誤蠻嚴重的,尤其斜體處。

另有兩點值得一提。其一,Arendt明白指出19世紀末猶太人與同性戀的一項共同點,即 「猶太性」與「同性戀」(homosexuality)都被視為一種心理屬性,而在社會上都被視為道德墮落--某種不正常的屬性,而非某種行動。其次,以 這項關聯為前提,Arendt刻意把「將罪行與奸邪混為一談」稱作「perverted tolerance」,我嘗試譯成「顛倒是非的寬容」,但這就失去原文的雙關意涵,即在19世紀末的性學中,同性戀即是「倒錯者」(the perverted)。同樣,Arendt引用的普魯斯特的句子將「murder in inverts and treason in Jews」並舉,「invert」一樣是弦外之音,也指向同性戀。

這兩個段落對我這個濫情而理盲之人來說,如當頭棒喝。

[原文]
There is no better witness, indeed, of this period when society had emancipated itself completely from public concerns, and when politics itself was becoming a part of social life. The victory of bourgeois values over the citizen’s sense of responsibility meant the decomposition of political issues into their dazzling, fascinating reflections in society. It must be added that Proust himself was a true exponent of this society, for he was involved in both of its most fashionable “vices," which he, “the greatest witness of dejudaized Judaism" interconnected in the “darkest comparison which ever has been made on behalf of Western Judaism": the “vice" of Jewishness and the “vice" of homosexuality, and which in their reflection and individual reconsideration became very much alike indeed.

It was Disraeli who had discovered that vice is but the corresponding reflection of crime in society. Human wickedness, if accepted by society, is changed from an act of will into an inherent, psychological quality which man cannot choose or reject but which is imposed upon him from without, and which rules him as compulsively as the drug rules the addict. In assimilating crime and transforming it into vice, society denies all responsibility and establishes a world of fatalities in which men find themselves entangled. The moralistic judgment as a crime of every departure from the norm, which fashionable circles used to consider narrow and philistine, if demonstrative of inferior psychological understanding, at least showed greater respect for human dignity. If crime is understood to be a kind of fatality, natural or economic, everybody will finally be suspected of some special predestination to it. “Punishment is the right of the criminal," of which he is deprived if (in the words of Proust) “judges assume and are more inclined to pardon murder in inverts and treason in Jews for reasons derived from . . . racial predestination." It is an attraction to murder and treason which hides behind such perverted tolerance, for in a moment it can switch to a decision to liquidate not only all actual criminals but all who are “racially" predestined to commit certain crimes. Such changes take place whenever the legal and political machine is not separated from society so that social standards can penetrate into it and become political and legal rules. The seeming broad- mindedness that equates crime and vice, if allowed to establish its own code of law, will invariably prove more cruel and inhuman than laws, no matter how severe, which respect and recognize man’s independent responsibility for his behavior. (80-81)

[林驤華譯]
的確,這一時期大約就是,社會完全脫離公共事務,政治變成社會生活的一部分。當 中產階級得價值觀超過市民的責任意識,意味著政治問題變成了社會反應。必須補充的是,普魯斯特就是這個社會的代表,因為他和當時兩種最時髦的「邪惡」都有 關,他這個「去猶太化的猶太教的最偉大的見證人」和「西方猶太教有史以來最負面的對照」有所關連:將猶太人之「惡」與同性戀之「惡」作比較,兩者在反映和 個人再思中確實變得非常相像。

狄斯雷利發現邪惡只不過是反映著在社會中的罪。人類的墮落如果被社會接受,就會從一種有意的行為變成一種心 理特質,人對此無法選擇或拒絕,它是從外部強加給他的,而且就像藥物控制著有毒癮的人一樣控制著他。在將罪行同化或轉變成惡時,社會否認一切責任並建立一 個使人無法掙脫的宿命的世界。 社交圈通常會將狹隘和市儈當成是背離規範,也就是以道德式的判斷將之視為一種罪,這種理解如果出自自卑的心理,至少也表現出對人類尊嚴的極大尊重。 但是如果罪被簡易地理解成一種宿命,那麼每個人可能都會被假定有一種命數。「懲罰是罪人應得的」,但如果(用普魯斯特的話來說)「法官假定並且傾向於寬恕對同性戀者的謀殺,以及猶太人因為種族宿命而發生的叛國」,那麼罪人就逃脫了應得的懲罰。 能躲在濫施的寬容背後,對於殺人和叛國是一樁很誘人的事,因為它能立即消除所有事實上的罪犯,而且也消除了「根據種族出身」註定要犯某些罪的人。 這一改變發生在法律與政治機器尚未脫離社會的時候 ,以使社會標準能夠滲透進去成為政治的和法律的準則。這種表面上將罪與惡等同起來的包容,如果被允許成為法律,就一定會比所有嚴苛的法律都更殘酷、更無人性,因為法律尊重並承認人對自己的行為有其應負的責任。(108)

[試譯]
[普 魯斯特]是這個時期最佳的見證人。此際,社會與各種公共關懷徹底脫節,政治本身成為社會生活的一章。布爾喬亞價值勝過公民的責任感,這意謂政治議題分崩離 析,反射於社會,瞑眩迷人。不能不提的是,普魯斯特本人正是這個社會如假包換的代言人,因為他涉入兩種其時社會最風行的「奸邪」(vice)。普魯斯特是 「去猶太的猶太習俗最偉大的見證者」,這又勾連著「人們對西方猶太習俗作過最陰險的比附」,亦即,猶太屬性之「奸邪」和同性戀之「奸邪」。這兩種「奸邪」 反映於普魯斯特,又得到這個個體的再思量後,的確變得十分相似。

Disraeli發現,奸邪不過是罪行(crime)在社會中相應的反 射。人類的邪惡一旦為社會接受,便從出於意志的行動變成某種內在的、心理學上的屬性,人無法選擇或拒絕。這種屬性由外橫加於彼,強制使役他,猶如藥物使役 那成癮者。社會吸納罪行並轉化為奸邪,一經如此,社會否認各種責任。一座宿命論的世界建了起來,人們陷溺其中。踰矩一律當成罪行的那種道德至上的判斷,上 流社交圈向來認為狹隘又庸俗,難保還是理解人心的能力較劣的證據。然而,道德至上的判斷至少敬重人類尊嚴較深。倘若人們把罪行理解為某種自然或經濟的宿 命,某種特別的罪行命定論就等著所有人陷落。「懲罰是罪犯的權利」,(用普魯斯特的話來說)如果「法官基於⋯種族的命定論,認為且更傾向於赦免倒錯者 (invert)的殺人罪與猶太人的叛國罪」,這項權利才會被剝奪。某種殺人與叛國的誘惑,藏在這般顛倒是非的寬容之後,因為,彈指間,這種誘惑有可能轉 變為一項決定,決定不僅豁免所有罪有應得的罪犯,甚且蔭及所有「就種族而言」命定犯下特定罪行的人。一旦法律與政治的機器沒有與社會分離,以致社會的標準 能夠穿透這台機器,變成政治與法律的規則,這種轉變就會發生。將罪行等同於奸邪,貌似開明寬宏,要是人們真允許如此建立一套法典,這種開明寬宏勢將表明其 較法律更殘酷、更不人道(inhuman)。法律再如何嚴厲,總是敬重且承認人於其行為無可旁貸的責任。(80-81)

← 關於The Origins of Totalitarianism的中譯 (1) 非關男女 瑞典性別由平等走向中立 →
 
comments powered by Disqus