“走向同情的政治”: 特邀編輯介紹與概述

卓 悅

2023年1月,塞繆爾·韋伯應我和上海大學之邀,在線上作了三場系列講座。講座是2022年10月在巴黎初步構思的,當時的想法是講座內容可以在某種程度上繼續他在2022年剛出版的新書《先存條件:重述瘟疫》(PreexistingConditions:RecountingthePlague,區域圖書出版社)中對新冠疫情經歷的思考,同時考慮到近兩年國內文學和批評理論界的部分同行對他在2021年出版的著作《獨異性:政治和詩學》(Singularity:PoliticsandPoetics,明尼蘇達大學出版社)中的“獨異性”概念也甚為關注,因此我們商定講座的內容將綜合這兩部近作中的一些重要概念和文獻,同時保持其開放性,自然地融入韋伯目前正在思考和撰寫的新的主題。

韋伯為該系列講座提供了一個總標題:“同情的閱讀”(Reading as Compassion)。這個題目立刻就吸引了我,因為我覺得這正是我們在經歷了近三年的疫情之后亟須交流的一種感情。到2023年1月講座正式開始的時候,從大城市到農村,中國各地都陸續達到了感染高峰。于是,講座的題目變得更加應景了:講座中的一些內容和現實中正在經歷的事件不謀而合,似乎一方面在呼吁對受疫情影響的人們賦予更多的同情,另一方面也在對全人類的生存境遇進行整體的反思。

什么是“同情的閱讀”?這個標題的含義,隨著三場講座在兩周內的展開慢慢清晰起來?！伴喿x”首先指的當然是閱讀行為,其對象包括但不限于書籍、政治話語、媒體或社交網絡所提供的信息,但它的定義與其說由閱讀的對象所決定,還不如說由一種態度來界定。這種態度是對語言本身的關注,德國文學評論家維爾納·哈馬赫(Werner Hamacher)稱之為“語言的不斷增殖”現象。閱讀是一種享受,但也是一項任務,即把語言當作一種緩慢指向意義的過程來感受和理解,無論它所處的語境是文學、政治還是社會或文化。至于“同情”,我們首先可以從德里達晚期為動物權利辯護的意義上去理解:它呼吁惻隱之心,呼吁站到動物以及淪落到人-動物極限狀態的赤貧生命這一邊去感受世界的權利和立場。在《十日談》里,薄伽丘則賦予了“同情”另一層含義。作者將一種自傳式的經驗,即他依靠友人的安慰及與他們愉快的對話才得以從愛情的痛苦中幸存下來這一經歷,轉化為對文學共同體的建構。薄伽丘決定寫《十日談》不僅是為了回報他從朋友那里得到的幫助,同時還希望將同情心置于他與聽眾和讀者關系的核心位置?！妒照劇防锛w輪流敘事的方式,旨在安撫1349年致命的大瘟疫給佛羅倫薩人民帶來的悲傷和痛苦。

韋伯用英語作了三場講座。因為現場沒有翻譯,也因為他講座所涉及的文獻廣博而錯綜,我在每場講座結束之后都用中文作了一個“概述”。這些概述意在總結講座內容,并為他詳細分析的、一些不一定人盡皆知的西方文學和哲學作品提供背景信息。同時,它們還試圖將他講座中不同部分之間暗藏著的關系進一步明朗化。當然不可避免地,我代入了我自己的視角和闡釋。我希望我的解讀能夠突出每場講座的一些要點,而不削弱其原有的敏銳性和豐富性。

講座一:“走向同情的政治”

韋伯在第一講中首先描述了新冠疫情的背景及2020年以來我們在生活中經歷的一些不確定性。他注意到,在世界上許多地方,人們都可以感受到民眾對其政府的不滿情緒越來越強烈。但最引人注目的現象,也許是社會各方面的財富更加集中在一小部分人手里:“至少在最近的記憶中,所謂‘發達的西方’社會比以往任何時候都更成為或已經成為‘富豪統治的國家’,對大眾的福利越來越漠不關心?！彪m然這不是什么新鮮事,但它在當前采取的方式已使社會最基本的生存和運作受到了威脅。隨后,韋伯介紹了他講座的主要內容,即對待瘟疫的兩套理想和價值觀之間的斗爭:“一方面是獨立自主的個人,另一方面是集體的相互依存。”他通過重訪兩個關于瘟疫的經典敘述來闡述這一觀點:第一個是公元前430年左右在雅典爆發的瘟疫,適逢伯羅奔尼撒戰爭開戰的第二年,雅典人被斯巴達人圍困著,修昔底德在他的《伯羅奔尼撒戰爭史》中見證并討論了當時的情景;第二個是在14世紀中葉(1349年)肆虐佛羅倫薩的黑死病,它造就了歐洲文學歷史上一部偉大的敘事作品——薄伽丘的《十日談》。

講座的第二部分專門討論了修昔底德對瘟疫和戰爭的敘述。我們知道,第一次伯羅奔尼撒戰爭(公元前431—421年)以雅典人的失敗告終。在雅典暴發的瘟疫奪去了雅典領導人伯里克利,以及其他大約十萬名雅典人的生命。但在某種程度上,伯里克利應該為此負責,因為是他下令在瘟疫期間繼續軍事行動,將雅典文化的“勇氣”和“美德”置于了個人的生命安全之上。伯里克利在陣亡將士的葬禮演說中,稱贊雅典人具有“自愿迎接危險”和“敢于冒險并預估風險”的獨特能力。然而,事實證明,瘟疫的危險性超乎了他們的想象。伯里克利的敵人——伯羅奔尼撒人,在他們的國王阿基達摩斯二世的領導下,采取了不同的行動。因為害怕感染,他們比原計劃提前離開了阿提卡。換句話說,伯羅奔尼撒人比雅典人更加靈活,他們毫不猶豫地改變了計劃,也敢于承認自己對瘟疫的恐懼。在這里形成對比的是雅典人的傲慢(hubris)和伯羅奔尼撒人的謹慎(prudence),前者忽略了思考需要的時間和空間,倉促地作出判斷和行動,而后者恰恰保留了語言、思考和行動之間時間和空間所起到的作用。

在第三部分,韋伯分析了另一種敘述瘟疫的經典模式:薄伽丘的《十日談》。他首先指出,《十日談》的敘述框架很重要,這個寫于14世紀中葉(1349—1353年)的文本收集了一百個短小的故事,這些故事由七個女人和三個男人講述了十天十夜。他們從佛羅倫薩撤離到了郊外的山上,以躲避城市里將奪走一半人生命的黑死病。這群人在離開佛羅倫薩之前和從鄉村別墅回來之后選擇的聚集地,叫作新圣母瑪利亞教堂(Chunch of Santa Maria Novella)。Novella這個詞在這里既指新事物,也指短篇小說的形式。也許,我們可以把新圣母瑪利亞教堂看作混亂城市和田園鄉村之間的一個中間地帶,或者把它象征性地視為城市中正在發生的瘟疫和短篇故事里敘述的超出“當前”時空的事件之間的紐帶。

韋伯感興趣的是在佛羅倫薩發生的瘟疫與《十日談》中敘事之間的間接關系?！妒照劇匪v的一百個小故事沒有敘述瘟疫本身,并且每個人選講的故事也都是根據當天給出的主題即興發揮的內容:有些是關于人類的惡習的,另一些是關于悲劇性的愛情的,還有一些關于詭計、欺騙,等等。佛羅倫薩的黑死病和這些故事之間究竟有什么關系呢?換個問法:為什么薄伽丘覺得有必要用瘟疫作為這些故事的框架?韋伯認為,薄伽丘在序言對女性讀者的致辭中流露出來的“同情心”指明了一種可能的態度。但是,要解釋什么是“同情心”,他必須先介紹他的“摩擦性敘述”(frictional narration)的概念①。

在講座中,韋伯將摩擦性敘述定義為對社會和文化“既存狀態”的移位性影射。具體地說,它指的是這樣一個事實:在《十日談》里,詞語的傳統意義,尤其是基督教的救贖希望,仍以潛在的方式活躍著,但它將會以一種扭曲的、“新穎的”(novel)方式重新出現。韋伯舉的例子是《十日談》里由潘菲洛(Panfilo)敘述的第一個故事。這是一個關于塞帕雷洛爵士(Ser Cepparello)的故事,這個人被描述為“有史以來最糟糕的人”,但他足夠聰明,在臨終前成功地欺騙了前來接受他懺悔的修士。在他死后,他被奉為圣人,連名字也被改成了帶有宗教意味的圣-塞帕雷托(Saint Ciappelletto)。我們可以說,這個小故事是一個“回到上帝身邊”的故事,它在上帝的恩典、仁慈和寬容中找到圓滿的結局。但韋伯指出,故事并沒有就此結束,它是在潘菲洛的一句奇怪的話中終結的,這句話敦促他的聽眾“贊美他(上帝)的名字,(因為)它是我們的原初,并敬畏他(上帝),在我們需要的時候向他推許自己,因為我們確信我們會被聽到”。韋伯進一步指出,這句話也并不是文本的最后話語。因為潘菲洛在以“在我們需要的時候……我們會被聽到”這個安慰性斷言結束他的故事后,又在敘述中增加了一個短句,而這個短句在整個《十日談》中完全是單獨存在的:“Etquisitacque”,這句拉丁語可以翻譯為“到這里他就不說話了”,或者更字面的翻譯為“到這里講述停止了”。敘述中的這一中斷,使我們對最確定的期待產生了疑問,即上面提到的,對被(上帝)聽到和被拯救的期待。值得注意的是,潘菲洛并沒有揭示這句話的含義。他“咬住舌頭不說”,就像本雅明定義的“高度政治化的寫作風格”一樣:“通向那被拒絕的詞”(Hinzuführen auf das dem Wort versagte)。潘菲洛阻止自己說出言不可達的東西,讓他的聽眾自己去判斷人類是否真的能被(在上者)“聽到”。而根據韋伯對薄伽丘的解釋,正是這個“被拒絕”的詞或這種言不可達的領會為可能的“同情”提供了基礎,因為在這種令人不安的緘默中,人類可以將這個故事與他們自己所需要的“被傾聽”的欲望聯系起來,尤其在他們身處瘟疫,經歷各種災難和個人隱痛的時候。

在講座的最后部分,韋伯借助本雅明和德里達的著作來進一步思考同情的概念。他首先討論了本雅明對當時被認為是“有效政治話語”的拒絕,這種話語將單個單詞串聯成短句(Wort-an-Wort-Reihen),從而產生一種“擴張性傾向”,并排除一切不可被言說的東西。本雅明把這類語言稱為“澄澈”的語言,因為它創造了一種“絕對意義”,使語言和行動都成為工具。本雅明倡導的是一個相反的模式,在他的《講故事的人》一文中進行了闡述。這是一種不消除單詞和單詞之間的空間,即“差異性關系”的敘述藝術。它通常是“純粹描述性”的,即保留詞語的復雜性和模糊性,喚起了一些聯想和意義,卻不一定給出答案。如果說偽有效的政治話語旨在揭示“絕對”的意義,那么本雅明所說的“講故事”是一個制造意義的工作,它是一個持續不斷且永遠無法完成的過程。

這個否認詞語可以達到全權意義的過程與韋伯所說的“同情的政治”(Politics of Compassion)有何關聯呢?或許,德里達的遺作《我之所以就是個動物》(L’animalquedoncjesuis,也可以譯成《我之所以就追隨這個動物》)可以在兩者間搭建一座橋梁。韋伯指出,德里達對動物的“感覺”或“感情”的強調,可以在90年代末他對“同情的政治”的反思這一更大的背景下去理解。和年輕的本雅明一樣,德里達也認為戰爭涉及語言。在他看來,過去的兩個世紀不僅是戰爭的世紀,也是西方通過資本和技術,通過“擴張”“軍國主義”傾向,將其意識形態確立為一種普遍的“絕對正當”,從而對其他文化進行急速普遍化(或“人類學化”)的歷史時期。從這個意義上說,德里達在《我之所以就是個動物》這個標題中玩的文字游戲力爭解構一種政治上具有侵略性的“絕對正當”,從而重新引入了“存在于文字中心地位的異質性差異”②。它同時也強調了可以被無限分割的、脆弱的、終有一死的普通生命的獨異性,這些生命一直在被以人類美好前景為名義的戰爭否定著。將微小的獨異性聯系起來的,不是一個具有普遍性的專有名詞(韋伯在別處稱之為“一神認同范式”),而是不同性質的、多樣化的情感體驗,從焦慮和具有攻擊性,到快樂和滿懷希望,當然最重要的還是同情(compassion),因為compassion一詞的前綴“com-”最好地表述了一種“感受自己猶如他人”的情感。

注釋[Notes]

① 《先存條件:重述瘟疫》中的第四章(關于薄伽丘的章節)詳細討論了“摩擦性敘述”。PreexistingConditions:RecountingthePlague, New York: Zone books, 2022, pp.71-92.

② 我們將在第三個講座中具體討論德里達的一些新造詞和文字游戲,比如animot(動物詞、動物)和je suis(我是、我跟隨)。

Guest Editor’s Introduction

In January 2023, Professor Samuel Weber delivered a series of three lectures online at my invitation on behalf of Shanghai University. When we first conceived these lectures in Paris, the idea was to continue, somewhat peripherally, his reflections on the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic assembled in a newly published book entitledPreexisitingConditions:RecountingthePlague(New York: Zone Books, 2022). In parallel to this thought was the keen interest that the notion of singularity, developed in his previous book,Singularity:PoliticsandPoetics(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2021), has recently generated in certain academic circles of literary and critical theory in China. We therefore agreed that the themes of the lectures would combine a number of important issues in these two recent works while remaining open-ended, allowing current as well as future projects to settle in as they develop.

Professor Weber proposed an overarching title, “Reading as Compassion,” for the lecture series. The title immediately appealed to me as I felt it was exactly what we needed after having lived with the pandemic for almost three years. By the time the lectures were delivered, China was swept by a violent outbreak of Omicron, spreading from big cities to rural areas. The title became thus all the more pertinent, as the reality coincided with some of the content in the lectures, calling for more sympathy toward the vulnerable population affected by the pandemic and more reflection on the survival of the human species in general.

The meaning of the title, “Reading as Compassion,” would only gradually unfold as the lectures were delivered at an intermittent pace, in the space of two weeks. “Reading” here refers first, of course, to the act of reading — of books, political discourses, information made visible by media outlets or social networks, but it is perhaps defined less by the object of the act of reading than by an attitude of attention paid to the language itself, to what the German literary critic and philosopher Werner Hamacher calls the “perpetual multiplication of languages.” Reading is an enjoyment but also a task to feel and understand language as a slow signifying process, whether the context is literary, political, or social. As for “compassion,” it can first be understood in the Derridean sense of appeal for pity, for the right and duty to standalongsideanimals as well as the human beings reduced to a limit human-animal condition. Boccaccio’sDecamerongives another dimension to the word “compassion.” It transforms an autobiographical experience (Boccaccio survived his suffering of love affairs thanks to the pleasant conversation and consolation he received from his friends) into the building of a literary community. Not only is his decision to write theDecameronan attempt to repay this debt he received from his friends, but he also places compassion at the heart of his relationship to his listeners and readers. His stories, in the form of collective narrations, were aimed at appeasing the sadness and suffering that the deadly plague had brought to Florence in 1349.

Because Professor Weber’s lectures were given in English without translation, and because his references were ample, erudite and interwoven, I deemed it necessary to give an “overview” in Chinese at the end of each lecture. These overviews meant to summarize the lectures and provide extra background information on some of the works he analyzed in details. They also attempted to make hidden links of different parts of his lectures more explicit. Inevitably, I brought in my own perspective and interpretations. I hope that my readings can contribute to highlight some of the main points of each lecture without reducing any of its original richness.

Overview of Lecture 1：TowardaPoliticsofCompassion

Professor Weber starts the first lecture by giving a description of the Covid-19 pandemic and some uncertainty in our experience in living it. He contends that in many parts of the world, a growing disaffection of the population with regard to their government can be felt. Perhaps the most noticeable phenomenon linked to this pandemic is the growing control of wealth in a small group of people in all aspects of society: “More than ever in recent memory at least, ‘developed Western’ societies are becoming or have become ‘plutocracies,’ with increasing indifference to the general welfare.” Although this is nothing new, it is taking forms that call into question the very conditions that enable societies to survive and function. Professor Weber then introduces the main content of his lecture, which is the struggle between two sets of ideals and values that deal with the plague: “that of the autonomous individual on the one hand, and that of collective interdependence on the other.” He does so by examining two classical accounts of the plague: the first is the one that struck Athens in 430 BC, while the city was under siege by Sparta during the second year of the Peloponnesian War, and which is witnessed and recounted by Thucydides in hisHistoryofthePeloponnesianWar; the second is the Black Death that ravaged Florence in the middle of the 14thcentury (1349) and that gave rise to one of the masterpieces of narrative literature, Boccaccio’sDecameron.

The second part of the lecture is devoted to Thucydides’ description and discussion of the plague. We know that the first Peloponnesian War (431-421BC) ended with the defeat of the Athenians. The plague that broke out in Athens was bad enough to take the life of Pericles, the leader of Athens, along with some 100,000 other Athenians. But in a way Pericles “asked” for it because it was him who ordered to continue military operations during the plague, putting the “courage” and “virtue” of the Athenian culture above the safety of individual lives. Pericles lauded the Athenians for their unique ability to “meet danger voluntarily” and to “take risks and estimate them beforehand;” however, the danger of the plague turned out to be incalculable for the human mind. The Peloponnesians, under the leadership of their King Archidamus, on the other hand, acted differently. They left Attica earlier than they had intended because they were afraid of the infection. In other words, the Peloponnesians proved to be more flexible; they did not hesitate to change their plans and they also acknowledged that they were fearful of the plague. What is put into contrast here is the Athenian hubris and the spartanprudence: the former eliminated the time and space for reflection, and rushed to judgement and action, whereas the latter tried precisely not to reduce the temporal and spatial gap between language, thought and action.

In the third part, Professor Weber analyzes another classical model of recounting the plague: Boccaccio’sDecameron. He first points out that the frame of the story is important: written in the middle of the 14thcentury (1349-1353), the text presents a hundred little stories told over ten days and nights by seven women and three men, who have retreated in the hills outside Florence to flee the plague that will kill almost half of its population. The place that the group chose to gather before they left Florence and after they returned from the rural villa is called the Church of Santa Maria Novella. The word “Novella” here signifies both something new and the short story form,novella. The Church of Santa Maria Novella can therefore be conceived as an intermediate place between the chaotic city and the idyllic countryside, as well as a symbolic link between the plague happening in the city and events narrated in the short stories, which are outside the “present” time and space.

Professor Weber is interested in the oblique relation between the plague that was occurring in Florence and the storytelling in theDecameron, which does not recount the plague as such, but short stories each person chooses to tell based on the themes given on the day: some on human vices, others on tragic love, yet others on trickery, deceit, etc. What is the relation between the Black Death and these stories, or, to ask it differently, why does Boccaccio feel the necessity to use the plague as the frame for these “novellas”? Professor Weber suggests that “compassion” in Boccaccio’s address to his female readers in the beginning of theDecameronmight indicate a possible response. But, in order to explain what he means by compassion, Professor Weber first needs to introduce what he calls the “frictional” narration①. Here in the lecture, frictional narration is defined as adisplacedallusion to the social and cultural “pre-conditions”; more precisely, it refers to the fact that the conventional meaning of words prior to their use in theDecameron, especially the Christian hope of salvation, remains active, but that its re-inscription in theDecameronis somewhat twisted, displaced, recounted in a “novel” manner. The example he gives is the first story, which was recounted by Panfilo. It is the story of “Ser Cepparello,” who is described as probably the “worst man who had ever been born,” but who is smart enough to sufficiently deceive a friar who has come to take his confession on his deathbed, so that after his death he is considered to be a saintly character and was indeed known then as “Saint Ciappelletto.” We can say that the story ends on a happy note of “returning to God,” to his Grace, his kindness, his tolerance. But Professor Weber points out the story does not end here; it ends on a strange sentence of Panfilo urging his listeners “to praise His name, which is what we began with, and venerate Him, commending ourselves to Him in our need,inthecertainknowledgethatwewillbeheard.” Furthermore, these last words of the first story of theDecameronare not the last words of the meta-narrative that frames the text. For after Panfilo has finished his tale with the comforting assertion that “in our need (...) we will be heard,” the narrative adds one short sentence, which stands entirely alone in the entireDecameron: “Etquisitacque,” which can be translated as “And here he stopped speaking,” or even more literarily, “And here speaking stopped.” This interruption of the narrative calls into question the most sure expectation, which isbeingheardandbeingsaved, but Panfilo does not reveal the meaning of this sentence. He “bit his tongue,” in the same fashion as what Benjamin defines as the “highly political style of writing”: “To lead up to that which is denied the word” (HinzuführenaufdasdemWortversagte). Panfilo stops himself “from speaking what could not be spoken,” leaving his listeners to decide if humans can indeed be “heard.” It is however this word “denied,” according to Professor Weber interpretating Boccaccio, that provides the basis for a possible “compassion,” for it is in this disturbing silence that human beings can relate the story to their own need for “being heard,” especially in the times of natural catastrophes such as the plague.

In the last part of this lecture, Professor Weber resorts to Benjamin’s and Derrida’s writings to further reflect on the idea of compassion. He first discusses Benjamin’s rejection of what was then considered a dominant notion of politically effective discourse, which is based on a “Wort-an-Wort-Reihen” (chain of individual words in sentence) that produces “expansive tendency” and eliminates the unsayable. Benjamin calls this type of language “crystalline” because it creates an “absolute meaning” that instrumentalizes both the language and action. The opposite model, the one that he advocates, is discussed in his article “The Storyteller.” It is an art of recounting that does not eliminate the space in between words, the space of “differential relationality.’ Often “purely descriptive,” it leaves room for complexity and ambiguity of words, evoking something without necessarily giving an answer. If the pseudo effective political discourse imposes “absolute” meaning, the modest storytelling in the Benjaminian sense is the work of significance, which is an ongoing and never completable process.

How does this complex process, which denies the full meaning of words, relate to what Professor Weber calls the “politics of compassion”? Perhaps Derrida’s posthumous book,TheAnimalThatThereforeIAm(Follow) (L’animalquedoncjesuis) can provide a bridge between the two. Professor Weber points out that Derrida’s emphasis on the “feeling” for or empathy with animals can be viewed in the larger context of the philosopher’s reflections on the “politics of compassion” at the end the 1990s. Like the young Benjamin, Derrida also sees war as involving language, and the past two centuries are not only centuries of war, but also a historical period in which the West inflicts a precipitous universalization (or “anthropologization”) onto other cultures, via the capital and technology, but also via an “expansive,” “militaristic” tendency to establish its ideology as a generalized “absolute proper.” In this sense, Derrida’s wordplay in the titleTheAnimalThatThereforeIAm(Follow)②deconstructs the aggressive political “absolute proper” and reintroduces a “heterogeneous divergence at the heart of words.” It also puts an emphasis on the differential singularity of the “dividual,” vulnerable, mortal lives that have constantly been denied by the war in the name of species. What links the differential singularity, however, is not a generalizing proper name (what Professor Weber has called elsewhere the “Mono-theological paradigm”), but heterogenous affective experience ranging from anxiety and aggressivity to joy and hope, and above all, compassion.

[Notes]

① The concept of “frictional narration” is discussed in detail in the chapter four (the chapter on Boccaccio) ofPreexistingConditions:RecountingthePlague(New York: Zone Books, 2022).

② We will come back to discuss some of Derrida’s neologisms and wordplay, such as “animot” and “je suis” (meaning both “I am” and “I follow”) in the third lecture.