争论会造成伤害这种观点会让学习变得不再可能

乔纳森·齐默尔曼(Jonathan Zimmerman)称,包括他自己在内的,对詹姆斯·斯威特(James Sweet)关于现时论的文章的反应损害了真正的学术辩论

九月 1, 2022
Booth
Source: Getty

点击阅读英文原文


我很抱歉。

我知道这篇文章会伤害到一些读者。所以请允许我为自己造成的任何伤害提前道歉。

只是开个玩笑。

人们很可能会被我写的东西冒犯。他们也许会生气。但他们不会受到伤害。此外,一旦我们开始使用这些词汇来描述我们所说或所写的东西,我们将完全无法交流。

美国历史学会现任主席、威斯康星大学(University of Wisconsin)历史学家詹姆斯·斯威特的一篇文章最近引起了轩然大波。斯威特在美国历史学会的月刊《历史观点》(Perspectives on History)上撰文称,他担心自己的职业正在受到“现时论”(presentism)的影响,即通过当下的视角来解释和评价过去。

推特世界爆发了,人们谴责斯威特是一个脱离现实的白人,他没有抓住历史的的真正情节:被压迫者与压迫者的斗争。批评者尤其不喜欢他对“身份政治”的抨击,他们认为这意味着斯威特在诋毁或忽视少数族裔,尽管他的整个职业生涯都在研究非洲和黑人移民。他的敌人说,他说错话了,必须为此受到惩罚。一些人呼吁美国历史学会撤回这篇文章;也有人说,斯威特应该被解除主席职务。

我希望斯威特能对批评者做出回应,完善自己的论点,并欢迎更多的反驳。这就是学术界的工作方式,至少我是这么认为的。你提出一个观点。我批判它。你做出回应。这样不断进行下去,直到我们都对自己的想法有了更深的理解。

然而事情并不像我期望的那样。许多社交媒体的发言指责的是斯威特的人格,而不是他的论点;一位评论者甚至把他比作3K党(没错,你可以找找那个评论)。斯威特没有回答他文章引发的复杂问题,而是发表了一份可怜巴巴的道歉。

美国历史学会在斯威特的原始文章后附上了一份作者笔记,其中说道:“我曾希望就我们如何在充满政治色彩的环境中‘处理’历史展开一场对话。然而,我在话语中排除了许多成员,给同事、学科和协会造成了伤害。”最后,他再次为自己给其他历史学家和整个历史学界造成的“损害”道歉。斯威特写道:“我希望在未来与你们所有人的对话中挽回自己的错误。我在倾听和学习。”

不要对那个对话屏息以待。正是斯威特道歉的措辞,让真正的对话——以及真正的学习——几乎不可能实现。谁想伤害同事或学生?我当然不想。但是,一旦你把分歧想象成一种伤害,那你就别无他法,只能认罪,乞求原谅,在未来闭上你的大嘴,以保护所有人,尤其是你自己。

在道歉中,斯威特说,对他的文章的攻击表明“美国历史协会会员的声音和以往一样强大”。然而,事实恰恰相反。因为斯威特的专栏而发声的人基本都在都在谴责文章(包括斯威特本人)。其他所有人都保持沉默。

坦白说,虽然我从未见过斯威特,但我欣赏他的学识。不过,我认为他的文章有一些明显的弱点和歧义。正如林恩·亨特(Lynn Hunt)20年前在自己的美国历史协会主席专栏中对现时论的抨击一样,斯威特没有探讨历史学事如何随着时间而变化的(对历史学家来说,这是一个明显的遗漏)。他提到了自己即将发表的对《纽约时报》(New York Times)1619项目的批评(该项目旨在“将奴隶制的后果和美国黑人的贡献置于我们国家叙事的中心”),但他没有解释在他看来,现时论是如何破坏了这一点。他还将最高法院最近关于堕胎和枪支权的判决中错误的历史推论与非洲参与跨大西洋奴隶贸易的扭曲事实联系在一起,然而这两个案例都忽略了(拥有截然不同权力水平的)参与者的显著区别。

但这并不意味着斯威特像推特上攻击他的人所说,是一个种族主义者和帝国主义者。对他所写的关于现时论和其他一切东西的批评都是可行的,实际上也是必要的。但仅仅因为你不同意他的观点就给他贴上偏见的标签是卑鄙的。

我不认为他会因此受到伤害,就像他不会伤害他的读者一样。但是,用谩骂代替争论会使真正的分歧和讨论变得不可能,就像伤害和损害的隐喻一样。

如果你不喜欢这篇文章,不要骂我或者说我伤害了你;相反,请批评我的主张。我在倾听,在学习。

乔纳森·齐默尔曼是宾夕法尼亚大学(University of Pennsylvania)教育学朱迪和霍华德·伯克维茨教授(Judy and Howard Berkowitz professor),也是教育史教授。

本文由路子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (5)

Thank you for an excellent article. It is revealing that some of the offended feel free to offend those who with whom they do not agree.
Sweet's mea culpa sounds like the scripted self-criticisms in Stalin's Russia and during the Chinese Revolution and later the Cultural Revolution.
A thoughtful piece. Yet too late to dissipate the negative situation. Whoever is at fault, the current situation is a shambles. Zimmerman points out that there was no dissent in the voices that spoke up about Sweet's article. Is this because there wasn't time for support? It was 2 days between publishing and apology. Would there have been any point in defending or supporting? The current climate indicates that supporters and defenders would have both been called down with the same language used by the loud and angry. The part that struck me most, though is that we need to change the way we think about opposing views. Disagreement. Argument. Debate. These do not cause harm. They do not hurt. I reach for a metaphor and find exercise. So disagreement/argument/debate, these are like exercise. Some enjoy it, some find it difficult. Some hate it. And while the effects may, at times, be hard to bear, we are better off for it. Because it doesn't harm us. It doesn't hurt us. It is actually good for us. Just, sometimes, it is unpleasant and the after effects are miserable. Yet, it is undeniably important that we keep doing it. And the more we do it, the less we'll feel those miserable after effects. Somewhere along the line we stopped treating argument, disagreement and debate as a healthy thing, and started believing it was bad. If I reach for the same metaphor again, I find that exercise, when done wrong, can actually harm, it can hurt. And that's where we currently are. We are doing it wrong, and need to relearn how to do it right. Ad hominem is not disagreement, it is not debate, it is not argument. What it is, is wrong. People use it, I suspect, because they have been taught it. "You don't understand what I'm saying, that's why you disagree. Because, ultimately, this boils down to your intellectual capacity and how much less it is than mine". It doesn't matter if that's the message anyone intended to teach others, but that is the message I've seen spread throughout the world. On all side of all arguments. I'm not saying we should validate poor reasoning (or the complete lack there of). But we need to make sure that the intended message is understood. If that means taking a bit more time to explain, do it.
It is called bullying. And Sweet appeased it.
It is called bullying. And Sweet appeased it.