龔鵬程對(duì)話海外學(xué)者第七十一期：在后現(xiàn)代情境中，被技術(shù)統(tǒng)治的人類社會(huì)，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(shuí)的理論，而是每個(gè)人都應(yīng)實(shí)踐的活動(dòng)。龔鵬程先生遊走世界，并曾主持過(guò)“世界漢學(xué)研究中心”。我們會(huì)陸續(xù)推出“龔鵬程對(duì)話海外學(xué)者”系列文章，請(qǐng)他對(duì)話一些學(xué)界有意義的靈魂。范圍不局限于漢學(xué)，會(huì)涉及多種學(xué)科。以期深山長(zhǎng)谷之水，四面而出。

理查德·湯普森·福特教授（Professor Richard Thompson Ford）

美國(guó)斯坦福大學(xué)法學(xué)教授

龔鵬程教授：您好。人們普遍認(rèn)為，擴(kuò)大公民權(quán)利并更加堅(jiān)定地執(zhí)行這些權(quán)利可以讓社會(huì)不公正現(xiàn)象消失。 然而，在您的《權(quán)利的錯(cuò)：法律如何破壞爭(zhēng)取平等的斗爭(zhēng)》（Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality）一書(shū)中，您認(rèn)為盡管有時(shí)權(quán)利運(yùn)作得很好，但有時(shí)它們可能適得其反，使社會(huì)問(wèn)題變得更加困難。 您能為此做一些闡釋嗎？

理查德·湯普森·福特教授：龔教授，您好?；跈?quán)利的社會(huì)正義的途徑，具有將控制權(quán)置集中在個(gè)人手中的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。如果您覺(jué)得自己受到了虐待，法律賦予您尋求糾正的權(quán)利。至少在理論上，這些權(quán)利將得到執(zhí)行，不去考慮成本和收益或?qū)λ说挠绊?。因此，以該?quán)利過(guò)于昂貴或會(huì)造成超過(guò)其對(duì)個(gè)人的利益的社會(huì)危害為反對(duì)合法權(quán)利的有效論據(jù)是無(wú)效的。

但是這種方法有幾個(gè)明顯的缺點(diǎn)。它不能保證社會(huì)正義，因?yàn)樗哪康牟皇墙鉀Q系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題——而是孤立地解決問(wèn)題。

例如，美國(guó)法律禁止就業(yè)中的種族歧視，這有助于當(dāng)一個(gè)符合要求的個(gè)人僅僅因?yàn)榉N族而被拒絕工作時(shí)。但是，對(duì)于缺乏社會(huì)經(jīng)驗(yàn)或缺乏獲得好工作所必需的“軟技能”的貧窮和孤立的非洲裔美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)，這幾乎沒(méi)有什么作用。機(jī)會(huì)不平等的問(wèn)題比面臨非理性偏見(jiàn)的個(gè)人更大。

此外，個(gè)體化執(zhí)法無(wú)法解決廣泛的系統(tǒng)不公正問(wèn)題，因?yàn)楹螘r(shí)起訴是由個(gè)人決定的。因此，法律傾向于那些擁有知識(shí)、時(shí)間和資源來(lái)駕馭法律體系的人——那些已經(jīng)相對(duì)富裕的人。

更糟糕的是，由于法律不考慮社會(huì)背景，而只考慮個(gè)別情況，因此濫用行為可能已經(jīng)成熟，有時(shí)實(shí)際上會(huì)使更廣泛的社會(huì)問(wèn)題變得更糟。

例如，禁止性別歧視的法律——明確旨在促進(jìn)女性平等——被男性用來(lái)攻擊酒吧的“女士之夜”促銷活動(dòng)，甚至是母親節(jié)的贈(zèng)品。而且，更嚴(yán)重的是，通過(guò)對(duì)種族意識(shí)的肯定來(lái)糾正幾代種族歧視的影響的努力，已被攻擊為對(duì)白人的“反向歧視”。

A rights-based approach to social justice has the virtue of placing control in the hands of individuals. If you feel you have been mistreated, the law gives you an entitlement to seek redress. And these entitlements, at least in theory, will be enforced regardless of the costs and benefits or the effects on others. So, it is not a valid argument against a legal right that the right is too expensive or will cause social harm that outweighs its benefit to the individual. But this approach has several severe downsides. It cannot guarantee social justice because it is not designed to address systemic problems—instead it addresses problems in isolation. For example, American law prohibits race discrimination in employment, which helps when a clearly qualified individual is denied a job solely because of race. But it does little to open job opportunities to poor and isolated African-Americans who lack the social connections or “soft skills” necessary to get good jobs. The problem of unequal opportunities is larger than an individual facing irrational prejudice. Also, individualized enforcement can’t address broad system injustices because the decision of when to sue is made by individuals. So enforcement is skewed toward the claims people who have the knowledge, time and resources to navigate the legal system—those who are already relatively well off. Worse yet, because the law does not look at social context, but only at individual cases, it can be ripe of abuses and sometimes actually make the broader social problems worse. For example, laws prohibiting sex discrimination—clearly designed to advance women’s equality—are used by men to attack “Ladies Night” promotions at bars and even Mother’s Day giveaways. And, more seriously, efforts to redress the effects of generations of race discrimination through race conscious affirmative have been successfully attacked as “reverse discrimination” against whites.

龔鵬程教授：在您最新的著作《著裝規(guī)范：時(shí)尚法則如何創(chuàng)造歷史》（Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History）中，您概述了時(shí)尚法則和服裝習(xí)俗的歷史。 作為一名民權(quán)學(xué)者，您認(rèn)為時(shí)尚法的哪些方面很有趣，時(shí)尚與歧視等民權(quán)問(wèn)題又有怎樣的關(guān)聯(lián)？

理查德·湯普森·福特教授：著裝規(guī)范與服裝本身一樣古老。幾個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)，服裝一直是可穿戴身份的象征。時(shí)尚，爭(zhēng)取社會(huì)變革的武器；和著裝規(guī)范，一種維持政治控制的方式。在由社會(huì)等級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)和景觀定義的中世紀(jì)社會(huì)中，穿著像王子和屠夫的妻子一樣戴著寶石鑲嵌的王冠的商人是公敵。

在都鐸王朝的英格蘭，絲綢、天鵝絨和皮草被保留給貴族，而被稱為“行李箱軟管”（trunk hose）的膨脹褲（ballooning pants）可能被認(rèn)為是對(duì)良好秩序的威脅。

文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期的佛羅倫薩族長(zhǎng)科西莫·德·美第奇 (Cosimo de Medici) 抓住了時(shí)尚和著裝規(guī)范的力量，他說(shuō)：“一個(gè)人可以用兩碼紅布制成紳士（One can make a gentleman from two yards of red cloth.）。”

著裝規(guī)范隨著當(dāng)時(shí)的社會(huì)和政治理想而演變，但它們始終反映了權(quán)力和地位的斗爭(zhēng)。在 1700 年代，南卡羅來(lái)納州的“黑人法案”（Negro Ac）規(guī)定黑人穿著“高于他們的條件”（above their condition）是非法的。在 1920 年代，美國(guó)各地的工作場(chǎng)所都禁止自由奔放的女工穿著短發(fā)和合身的連衣裙，而在 1940 年代，黑人和拉丁裔男性喜歡的寬松的 Zoot 西裝（zoot suits）在東海岸到西海岸的城市引發(fā)了騷亂。

即使在當(dāng)今更加非正式的世界中，著裝規(guī)范仍然決定著我們穿什么、什么時(shí)候穿——以及服裝對(duì)于我們來(lái)數(shù)意味著什么。人們會(huì)因?yàn)榫庌p子、長(zhǎng)指甲、大耳環(huán)、胡須和紋身或拒絕穿西裝、打領(lǐng)帶、化妝和高跟鞋而失去工作。在一些城市，穿下垂的褲子是一種犯罪行為。

即使沒(méi)有書(shū)面規(guī)則，隱含的著裝規(guī)范仍然會(huì)影響機(jī)會(huì)和社會(huì)流動(dòng)性。硅谷的 CEO 們穿著 T 恤和人字拖，為整個(gè)行業(yè)定下了基調(diào)：穿著時(shí)尚連衣裙或高跟鞋的女性，在科技界面臨嘲笑，一些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家拒絕投資任何穿著西裝的人經(jīng)營(yíng)的公司。

我的書(shū)，著裝規(guī)范，介紹了從中世紀(jì)到現(xiàn)在的時(shí)尚規(guī)律歷史，走在歷史的紅地毯上，揭開(kāi)和審視服裝的經(jīng)典、習(xí)俗和習(xí)俗——那些我們經(jīng)常認(rèn)為理所當(dāng)然的規(guī)則。閱讀了著裝規(guī)范后，您將永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)再認(rèn)為時(shí)尚是膚淺的——穿衣也將不再一樣。

Dress codes are as old as clothing itself. For centuries, clothing has been a wearable status symbol; fashion, a weapon in struggles for social change; and dress codes, a way to maintain political control. Merchants who dressed like princes and butchers’ wives wearing gem-encrusted crowns were public enemies in medieval societies structured by social hierarchy and defined by spectacle. In Tudor England, silk, velvet and fur were reserved for the nobility and ballooning pants called “trunk hose” could be considered a menace to good order. The Renaissance era Florentine patriarch Cosimo de Medici captured the power of fashion and dress codes when he remarked, “One can make a gentleman from two yards of red cloth.” Dress codes evolved along with the social and political ideals of the day, but they always reflected struggles for power and status. In the 1700s, South Carolina’s “Negro Act” made it illegal for Black people to dress “above their condition.” In the 1920s, the bobbed hair and form-fitting dresses worn by free-spirited flappers were banned in workplaces throughout the United States and in the 1940s the baggy zoot suits favored by Black and Latino men caused riots in cities from coast to coast.

Even in today’s more informal world, dress codes still determine what we wear, when we wear it—and what our clothing means. People lose their jobs for wearing braided hair, long fingernails, large earrings, beards and tattoos or refusing to wear a suit and tie or make-up and high heels. In some cities, wearing sagging pants is a crime. And even when there are no written rules, implicit dress codes still influence opportunities and social mobility. Silicon Valley CEOs wear t-shirts and flip flops, setting the tone for an entire industry: women wearing fashionable dresses or high heels face ridicule in the tech world and some venture capitalists refuse to invest in any company run by someone wearing a suit.

My book,Dress Codes presents a history of the laws of fashion from the middle ages to the present day, a walk down history’s red carpet to uncover and examine the canons, mores and customs of clothing—rules that we often take for granted. After reading Dress Codes, you’ll never think of fashion as superficial again—and getting dressed will never be the same.

龔鵬程教授：您是學(xué)術(shù)自由聯(lián)盟（academic freedom alliance）的成員，這是一個(gè)堅(jiān)持學(xué)術(shù)自由原則的非營(yíng)利組織，成立于 2021 年。您能否簡(jiǎn)要介紹一下該組織的起源和宗旨？ 您認(rèn)為在美國(guó)大學(xué)里言論自由嗎，您認(rèn)為“取消文化”的恐懼被夸大了？

理查德·湯普森·福特教授：AFA 是由具有不同意識(shí)形態(tài)信念的人組織起來(lái)的，他們的共同信念是學(xué)術(shù)自由受到許多不同敵人的威脅。有一種“取消文化”（cancel culture）的想法已經(jīng)成為右翼的稻草人。但是，雖然這個(gè)詞被過(guò)度使用，但存在一種由惡意騷擾和排斥所強(qiáng)化的意識(shí)形態(tài)正統(tǒng)觀念的真正問(wèn)題。

有些職位被簡(jiǎn)單地視為具有放射性，結(jié)果是人們不再愿意討論某些事情，因?yàn)樗麄儠?huì)害怕變成騷擾的對(duì)象標(biāo)。

從左到右，我們看到了針對(duì)使用“錯(cuò)誤”過(guò)時(shí)術(shù)語(yǔ)或在涉及種族、性別、性別和性別認(rèn)同的問(wèn)題上采取有爭(zhēng)議但站得住腳的立場(chǎng)的人的攻擊。

反對(duì)英國(guó)作家 J.K.羅琳（J.K. Rowling）就是一個(gè)很好的例子：她對(duì)跨性別問(wèn)題的看法是有爭(zhēng)議的，在我看來(lái)，這應(yīng)該受到挑戰(zhàn)；但它們并不是仇恨或卑鄙的，她提出的問(wèn)題值得大眾討論。但是有一種反應(yīng)，經(jīng)常被那些不知道她的表述的人所接受，將她稱為一個(gè)恐跨癥的偏執(zhí)狂。

這種恥辱一直伴隨著她，盡管她做得很好，但其他分享她的觀點(diǎn)但不同意她的地位和財(cái)富的人，無(wú)疑會(huì)因?yàn)樗前駱佣蝗グl(fā)表看法。

還有一個(gè)更大的右翼人士的審查問(wèn)題：例如，我的大學(xué)斯坦福大學(xué)的一名剛畢業(yè)的學(xué)生因其對(duì)巴以沖突的評(píng)論，而成為組織良好且極具誤導(dǎo)性的媒體宣傳活動(dòng)的目標(biāo)，并且一位美國(guó)參議員加入了反對(duì)她的十字軍東征。她丟掉了作為記者的工作，因?yàn)樗鳛橐幻髮W(xué)生擔(dān)任了有爭(zhēng)議的職位。

具有諷刺意味的是，雖然她被攻擊為敵視以色列國(guó)，但她是猶太人并且在以色列生活過(guò)。

或者考慮一下由?？怂剐侣劦让襟w和機(jī)會(huì)主義政客積極推動(dòng)的對(duì)“關(guān)鍵種族理論”（ “Critical Race Theory.”）的恐慌。從字面上看，沒(méi)有一個(gè)攻擊批判種族理論的人為他們的主張引用實(shí)際證據(jù)，許多人甚至承認(rèn)他們不知道批判種族理論是什么。然而，這場(chǎng)騷擾運(yùn)動(dòng)導(dǎo)致了禁止教授“批判種族理論”的行政命令和立法。

同樣，美國(guó)各州現(xiàn)在禁止教授性取向（所謂的“不要說(shuō)同性戀”法）（Don’t Say Gay”laws）。這是反對(duì)高等教育或探索威脅自己地位和特權(quán)的思想的人們對(duì)知識(shí)自由的直接攻擊。

所以，我認(rèn)為這里有一個(gè)真正的問(wèn)題，隨著意識(shí)形態(tài)兩極分化的加劇，這個(gè)問(wèn)題變得明顯。

在大學(xué)校園里，管理人員經(jīng)常采取更容易的方式，屈服于紀(jì)律或譴責(zé)發(fā)表有爭(zhēng)議言論的教師的要求。無(wú)論要求審查的人是學(xué)生還是校友，他們都是在錯(cuò)誤地加強(qiáng)對(duì)寬容的看法，還是保守的校友、捐助者和越來(lái)越多的反對(duì)，不利于他們自己議程的想法的政客，都會(huì)發(fā)生這種情況。

這違反了學(xué)術(shù)自由的理想，并且有可能將校園變成只公開(kāi)表達(dá)保守和沒(méi)有挑戰(zhàn)性的想法的地方。AFA反對(duì)這種狹隘的思想和極權(quán)主義的思想，無(wú)論它出現(xiàn)在哪里，也究竟是誰(shuí)在背后支持。

The AFA was organized by people of very different ideological convictions who were joined by a shared belief that academic freedom was under threat from many different enemies. There is the idea of “cancel culture” which has become a sort of scarecrow for the right. But while the term is overused, there is a real issue with a sort of ideological orthodoxy that is enforced by vicious harassment and ostracism. Some positions are simply considered radioactive and the result is that people are no longer willing to discuss some things for fear of being targeted with a harassment campaign. From the left, we’ve seen attacks directed at people who use “wrong” outdated terminology or take controversial but defensible positions on questions dealing with race, sex, gender and gender identity. The campaign against the British author J.K. Rowling is a good example: her views on trans gender issues are controversial and, in my view, deserve to be challenged, but they are not hateful or mean spirited and she raises questions that merit civil discussion. But there’s been a reaction, often taken up by people who are ignorant of her actual statements, to tar her as a transphobic bigot. This stigma follows her to this day and although she is, of course, doing just fine, other people who may share her views but not her status and wealth, are undoubtedly deterred from speaking by her example.

There is an even larger issue of censorship by very powerful people on the right: for example, a recent graduate from my university, Stanford, was targeted for her comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by a very well organized and quite misleading media campaign and the crusade against her was joined by a U.S. Senator. She lost her job as a reporter over defensible if controversial position she took as a college student. An irony there was that while she was attacked as hostile to the state of Israel, she is Jewish and had lived in Israel. Or consider the panic, actively promoted by media outlets such as Fox News and by opportunistic politicians, over “Critical Race Theory.” Literally not one of the people attacking Critical Race Theory has cited any actual evidence for their claims and many have even admitted that they don’t know what Critical Race Theory is. Yet this harassment campaign has resulted in executive orders and legislation prohibiting the teaching of “Critical Race Theory”. Likewise, American states now prohibit teaching about sexual orientation (the so called “Don’t Say Gay” laws). This is a direct attack on intellectual liberty by people who oppose higher education or the exploration of ideas that threaten their own status and privilege. So, I believe that there is a real problem here, which is becoming more pronounced as ideological polarization increases. On college campuses, administrators often take the easier path and succumb to demands to discipline or censure faculty who make controversial statements. This happens whether the people demanding censorship are progressive students and alumni in a misguided effort to enforce their view of tolerance or conservative alumni, donors and increasingly, politicians who oppose ideas that are inconvenient for their own agendas. This is a violation of the ideal of academic freedom and it risks turning campuses into places where only anodyne and unchallenging ideas are openly expressed. The AFA opposes this kind of narrow mindedness and totalitarian policing of thought wherever it appears and whoever is behind it.

龔鵬程，1956年生于臺(tái)北，臺(tái)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(shū)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(tái)北、巴黎、日本、澳門等地舉辦過(guò)書(shū)法展。現(xiàn)為中國(guó)孔子博物館名譽(yù)館長(zhǎng)、美國(guó)龔鵬程基金會(huì)主席。