博文
科学家作为公共知识分子
||
科学家作为公共知识分子
2007.10.19
前几天写完《丧家狗孔子还是丧家狗我们》一文后，觉得有必要对所谓公共知识分子的问题做一点调研。于是从书堆中找出02年在风入松买的单德兴翻译三联出版的Edward Said的那本《知识分子论》又读了一遍。
我的《丧家狗孔子还是丧家狗我们》博文链接：http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=8447
解读Said的知识分子定义
Said的Orientalism（《东方学》）和Culture and Imperialism （《文化与帝国主义》）当年我有英文版，不过只读了个大概。《知识分子论》（Representations of the intellectuals）和他的自传《格格不入》（Out of place）我只有中文译本。
关于李零教授说Edward W. Said的《知识分子论》（Representations of the Intellectual）中对知识分子的定义“其主要特点就是背井离乡，疏离主流，边缘化，具有业余、外围的身份”，应该是李零教授或旁人的总结，因为在书中并没有这样一句话，而且Said对于知识分子虽然有充分的展开论述，却并没有一个简单的定义。按照译者单德兴在该书的序言中的说法如下：
“在本书中representations至少具有下列涵义：知识分子为民喉舌，作为公理正义及弱势者/受迫害者的代表，即使面对艰难险阻也要向大众表明立场及见解；知识分子的言行举止也代表/再现自己的人格、学识与见地。”
在为《格格不入》一书中文版写的导读序言中，单德兴又重复说：
“一九九四年出版的《知识分子论》，进一步强调再现的伦理（ethics）层面。在他看来，知识分子本着自己的见解及良知，坚定立场，担任众人喉舌，作为公理正义及弱势者/受迫害者的代表，即使面对权威与险阻，也要向大众表明立场及见解，向有权势者说真话；而知识分子的一言一行，也在代表/再现了自己的人格、关怀、学识与见地。”
在《知识分子论》一书中，Said的确谈到了“背井离乡，疏离主流，边缘化，具有业余、外围的身份”这些“特性”可能有助于知识分子保持自己在社会中扮演的角色，但并没有把它们总结成为知识分子的“主要特点”。
在三联《知识分子论》中译本的后记中，单德兴写道：
“知识分子在古今中外的历史上，一向扮演着重要的角色。中国传统知识分子，多以儒家理想中的‘士’自诩，信奉‘士不可不弘毅，任重而道远，仁以为己任，不亦重乎，死而后已，不亦远乎’的说法。不但讨论此议题，更强调躬身奉行。西方相关的论述也层出不穷，套用本书作者的说法，‘不但范围惊人，而且研究深入’。”
读罢Said的《知识分子论》，对照之下不禁觉得李零教授对Said知识分子定义的解读颇令人费解。
如果要说可能有曲解的话，恐怕不能说是译者单德兴曲解了Said，毕竟他又亲自访谈过Said本人，在他还没有糊涂的时候。如果是这样，那么只能说李零教授不仅是曲解了孔夫子，而且是用曲解了的Said来曲解了孔夫子。
知识分子的不同态度
在《知识分子论》中，Said写道：
“社会学家希尔斯（Edward Shils）为近代知识分子提供了一则经典式的定义：每个社会中......都有一些人对于神圣的事物具有非比寻常的敏感，对于他们宇宙的本质、对于掌握他们社会的规范具有非常的反省力。在每个社会中都有少数人比周遭的寻常伙伴更探寻、更企求不限于日常生活当下的具体情境，希望经常接触到更广泛、在时空上更具久远意义的象征。在这少数人之中，有需要以口述和书写的论述、诗或立体感的表现、历史的回忆或书写、仪式的表演和崇拜的活动，来把这种内在的探求形诸于外。穿越当下具体经验之屏幕的这种内在需求，标识了每个社会中知识分子的存在......”
“希尔斯后来又说：知识分子站在两个极端，不是反对盛行的准则，就是以某种基本上调和的方式存在着，以提供‘公共生活中的秩序和延续’。我的意见是：这两种可能性中只有第一种（与盛行的准则争辩）才是真正的近代知识分子的角色，原因在于宰制的准则现今与民族密切相关（因其上承民族之令），而民族一向唯我独尊，一向处于权威的地位，一向要求忠诚与服从......”
我在博文《关于学术》中对Edward Shils有一点介绍，有兴趣可以参看。
我的《关于学术》博文链接：http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=352
我个人觉得Said的说法不能说完全没有道理，但我并不赞同他在这里对于近代知识分子角色的定义。和希尔斯一样，我认为很可能“提供‘公共生活中的秩序和延续’”在很大程度上是知识分子更为重要的责任。难道维护学术规范和传承学术传统在社会中不是社会和历史中最有价值的事情和知识分子的重要责任吗？
当人们把社会规范和传统当成亘古不变的先天存在的时候，往往会心生“反对盛行的准则”之情。可是任何社会规范和传统都不是亘古不变的先天存在，而是社会文化和生活不断演化和沉淀的结果。对它们的传承和创新都同样是知识分子最为重要的任务，而“反对盛行的准则”的目的，也是为了防止其僵化和堕落，而不是为了反对而反对。在学术规范和学术传统上，提供“公共生活中的秩序和延续”更是知识分子所必须奉行的职责。
其实历史告诉我们，社会中的规范和传统，包括学术的规范和传统，都远比任何人想象的要脆弱。经过任何形式的文化大革命的洗礼之后，许多的规范和传统需要很长的时间才能恢复，而其中一部分则会永远地失去而无从恢复。
从这种程度上来讲，Said的关于知识分子态度是偏颇的。Said只有身在在学术规范和传统相比之下受到良好维护的西方大学的象牙塔中，才能够充分地按照他的“反对盛行的准则”知识分子角色行事。所以，他对千方百计要维护这一学术规范和学术传统的思想家希尔斯的不能苟同，是具有深刻讽刺意味和值得思考的事情。
科学家作为公共知识分子
关于大众媒体时代的公共知识分子问题一直有很多讨论。而科学家作为公共知识分子，往往被人指责为保守或不够激进，因为他们常常是以合作者和提供“公共生活中的秩序和延续”的身份参与社会。即使作为反叛者，他们也只是象Freeman Dyson描述的那种温和、保守和建设性的反叛者。
物理学家和作家Alan Lightman在2000年的MIT Communication Forum（MIT传播论坛）的相关讨论会上的一篇题为《The Role of the Public Intellectual》的讲话。这篇文章的全文请见博文最后附录。其中Lightman讨论了Emerson的公共知识分子、Said的公共知识分子，以及他自己的公共知识分子的定义，他还谈到了越来越普遍的科学家成为公共知识分子的现象和特征。
Alan Lightman文章《The Role of the Public Intellectual》链接：http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/papers/lightman.html
Alan Lightman在MIT的主页：http://www.mit.edu/~humanistic/faculty/lightman.html
Lightman对公共知识分子的定义是：Such a person is often a trained in a particular discipline, such as linguistics, biology, history, economics, literary criticism, and who is on the faculty of a college or university. When such a person decides to write and speak to a larger audience than their professional colleagues, he or she becomes a "public intellectual." 按照这一定义，Lightman是真正的科学家公共知识分子。Lightman还进一步将公共知识分子按照他们的话语特点将他们分为三个层次。
有趣的是，Lightman列入第二个层次的因发现DNA双螺旋结构而获得诺贝尔奖的James Watson作为公共知识分子几天前刚因为发表的“黑人不如白人聪明”的言论二引起轩然大波。我的国内博士和博导十有八九不合格的言论引起的公愤与他老兄相比，简直就是小巫见大巫。我不知道Watson的原话究竟如何，所以难以评判。
不管如何，文化和社会中的普遍存在着差异，但以种族差异来说明文化和社会中的差异，是非常荒谬的。我指出国内博士和博导十有八九按照某种标准衡量不合格的事实，但我从不认为这和中国人的种族和文化有什么必然的联系。指出这一事实是我的责任，胡乱地找原因则绝不是我的风格。
更多关于Public intellectual的讨论材料链接：http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/public.html
《Beyond the Ivory Tower-Academic Discourse in the Age of Popular Media》（《超越象牙塔-通俗媒体时代的学术话语》）一书的书稿内容链接： http://www.mit.edu/~saleem/ivory/
结论
当我们在呼吁建设良好的学术规范和学术传统的时候，我们是希望以“反对盛行的准则”的知识分子的身份呢？还是以“提供‘公共生活中的秩序和延续’”的知识分子的身份？
当我们象孔夫子一样，感受到礼崩乐坏，期盼进行文化和道德的建设的时候，我们是希望以“反对盛行的准则”的知识分子的身份呢？还是以“提供‘公共生活中的秩序和延续’”的知识分子的身份？
我们最后采取何种身份应该完全取决于我们个人是站在文化批判的角度还是文化建设的角度看待问题。其实这两种态度都是知识分子的正常态度，通常的情形是我们总在这两种状态之间摇摆，不管我们自己口头上的态度是如何坚决。非知识分子的态度则异常地简单：管他妈的不关我事。
从这个角度上讲，我对那些对规范、传统和权威一味持批判态度的人，总是不以为然。虽然规范、传统和权威无论任何在意义上都不是一成不变和绝对的，但他们却是社会秩序和个人道德的相对稳固的基石。对它们的批判和反对，只有在维护和延续的前提下才有意义。
否则，没有了家，我们就只剩下做“丧家狗”的命。
补记：
（以下文字是对保平兄第一个评论的说明。2007.10.20）
李零教授的书本身是对文化建设和保有的贡献，他在课里课外下的那些工夫是有重要价值的。他的观点从他个人的角度来讲也没有不对。我只是对他的这种观点背后的思想基础和历史来源感到好奇。当然，仔细读他那本书，觉得有些地方的文字和意思的解说还是很值得商榷的，这些就不是我要评论的了。
我个人认为知识分子的文化建设者和保有者的作用远大于批判者的作用。
文化的建设从来都不是在从容和优雅中进行的，所以批判和否定起来非常容易，建设和保有非常地难。是个二百五就可以开始批判社会，但只是真正有智慧和毅力的人才会去建设和保有。这后者正是孔夫子2500年前的孜孜追求。批判者是顶多是在替文化的建设和保有做打磨工作，日子不长就会灰飞烟灭，而留下的则正是思想和智慧中最重要和基本的东西。我读《论语》，总是能感受到这些美妙的东西，虽然我从来就不认为《论语》是全部的真理，但和其它的许多人类文化和思想经典一样，的确是走向全部真理的必经之路。李零教授对《论语》的打磨自有其价值，但他的打磨工作很快就会被人忘记，剩下来流传后世的还是《论语》。正是基于这个原因，我才认为他对孔夫子的正面评价不够，而不够的原因是仍然难以摆脱的中国知识分子自近代以降的对传统文化的信心。所以我才说我们是丧家狗，而孔子不是。
建设者和保有者的重要性，在自然科学中尤为突出。在科学研究中，大家很难会记得那些评论者和批评者的名字，在科学上留名的总是那些具有创造性和建设性的工作的人。所以，作为科学家，我们整天孜孜以求的正是能够做出这样的工作，并且让它逐渐被接受。
从正面讲，正如Allan Bloom所说，我们要站在巨人身上才能看得更远，但要站在巨人肩上并不是那么容易的。我的理解是，经典的作用，是那些能够帮助我们在某个方向上能够看得更远的东西。我们不能够任意地重新创造经典，就像我们不能随意地重新发明轮子（reinvent the wheel）的概念一样。剧烈摧毁过去文化的结果，使我们失去了站在巨人肩上的机会，又回到了原始人的认识水平，这正是今天大家感到思想混乱和无秩序的原因。
我们现在的问题，是试图去回避所有的矛盾。在小学、中学和大学的课堂中不仅中国的经典不读，西方的经典也不读；马列的经典不读，毛主席的经典也不读。我认为这些东西都应该放在一起读。
十年前正好是美国文化界反省经典教育最热烈的时候。当时Harold Bloom的The Western Canon和David Denby的Great Books两本书大为热销。这反映了知识界和社会对1960年代以来西方“文化大革命”思潮的反省。我当时正好在那里，所以也跟着反省和学习了一下西方的经典学习问题。
我的结论是，无论如何都应该赞成对经典的阅读，而且不管是以什么样态度去读它，只要不强求全社会只有一个最权威的解释就是好事。其实即使是被强求和最权威的解释保持一致，人们还是会因为自己的不同性格和经历，产生自己的理解和解释。所以，担心其实是多余的。真正专制的制度，是不让人读书和思考的，即使是认可的经典，也不是每个人都让读，正是因为害怕歧义。只有仔细读过经典，才能够更好地去试图理解和得出自己的体会和判断。至少，我对马列主义的判断就是通过读马列经典得来的，我妈以前很长一段时间是专教《资本论》的老师，所以我从小就很多版本的马列著作都见过和读过不少，才对它有更直接的认识。
我不认为少儿读经，就会被灌输成为虔诚的信徒。一个极端的例子是，斯大林当初就是神学院的学生，难道上帝还能在世界上找得出比他更厉害的反对者和破坏者吗？
李零教授的尝试和于丹教授的尝试，都是今天文化建设和保有层面上正面的尝试。纵使有水平差别，有不同解读，也都是在如来佛的手掌心中翻筋斗，是值得鼓励的。绝大多数人在这个问题上应该和我的看法差别不大。
*********************************************************************
The Role of the Public Intellectual
by Alan Lightman|
Over the years, my wife and children have grown accustomed to seeing me drift off into the world of my own thoughts -- it might be during a car ride or listening to my daughter tell me a story, or I might even be talking myself -- when, I'm told, my face dissolves, my eyes get glassy, I'm gone, useless to them, an absent father and husband. Being a person who works with ideas and books, an academic or a writer, is a terribly selfish activity, because it's hard to turn your mind off -- you're always at work, to the suffering of your family and friends. So I'd like to say a few things in justification of this kind of life, put it in larger perspective. In short, what is the role of the intellectual in the world at large? I wish my long suffering family and friends could be in this room at this moment to hear my defense.
I'll begin with some remarks by a famous intellectual of the past, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and a famous intellectual of the present, Edward Said. I then want to describe a sort of hierarchy of categories of the public intellectual and the increasing responsibilities as one moves up the hierarchy. I'll finish with a few remarks about the extraordinary recent phenonmenon in which people trained in the sciences have become some of our leading public intellectuals.
Emerson's Intellectual
Over 150 years ago, Ralph Waldo Emerson considered the meaning and function of the intellectual in his great essay "The American Scholar," delivered not far from where we sit now. [Address to the Phi Beta Kappa society, 1837].
Emerson put forth the idea of the "One Man," by which he meant the complete person, or the person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality -- the farmer, the professor, the engineer, the priest, the scholar, the statesman, the soldier, the artist. (If Emerson had lived today, surely he would have used the term "The One Person.") The intellectual is this whole person while thinking.
Emerson's intellectual, while enriched by the past, should not be bound by books. His most important activity is action. Inaction is cowardice.
Emerson's intellectual preserves great ideas of the past, communicates them, and creates new ideas. He is the "world's eye." And he communicates his ideas to the world, not just to fellow intellectuals.
And finally, Emerson's intellectual does all of these things not out of obligation to his society, but out of obligation to himself. Public action is part of being the One Man, the whole person.
Said's Intellectual
A more political tone to the concept of the public intellectual was suggested a few years ago by Edward Said of Columbia University, in a series of lectures called Representations of the Intellectual (1993 Reith Lecture).
According to Said, an intellectual's mission in life is to advance human freedom and knowledge. This mission often means standing outside of society and its institutions and actively disturbing the status quo. At the same time, Said's intellectual is a part of society and should address his concerns to as wide a public as possible. Thus Said's intellectual is constantly balancing the private and the public. His or her private, personal commitment to an ideal provides necessary force. Yet, the ideal must have relevance for society.
Said's ideas raise some interesting questions: How does the intellectual stand both outside society and inside society? How does the intellectual find common ground between what is of deeply personal and private interest and also what is of public interest? How does the intellectual engage him or herself with the changing issues of society while at the same time remaining true to certain unchanging principles?
Heirarchy of Levels of Public Intellectual
Let me now define what I mean by the public intellectual today. Such a person is often a trained in a particular discipline, such as linguistics, biology, history, economics, literary criticism, and who is on the faculty of a college or university. When such a person decides to write and speak to a larger audience than their professional colleagues, he or she becomes a "public intellectual."
* Level I: Speaking and writing for the public exclusively about your discipline. This kind of discourse is extremely important, and it involves good, clear, simplified explanations of the national debt, the how cancer genes work, or whatever your subject is. A recent book that illustrates this level is Brian Green's excellent book The Elegant Universe, on the branch of physics called string theory.
* Level II: Speaking and writing about your discipline and how it relates to the social, cultural, and political world around it. A scientist in this Level II category might include a lot of biographical material, glimpses into the society and anthopology of the culture of science. For example, James Watson's The Double Helix, or Steven Weinberg's essays about science and culture or science and religion in The New York Review of Books. Gerald Early's book, The Culture of Bruising, with essays on how racial issues are played out in prizefighting, would fit into this category. Or Steve Pinker's op ed piece in the The New York Times a year or so ago about the deeper meaning of President Clinton's use of language in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
* Level III: By invitation only. The intellectual has become elevated to a symbol, a person that stands for something far larger than the discipline from which he or she originated. A Level III intellectual is asked to write and speak about a large range of public issues, not necessarily directly connected to their original field of expertise at all. After he became famous in 1919, Einstein was asked to give public addresses on religion, education, ethics, philosophy, and world politics. Einstein had become a symbol of gentle rationality and human nobility. Gloria Steinheim has become a symbol of modern feminist thought. Lester Thurow has become a symbol of the global economy.
Some other contemporary people I would place in this Level III category include: Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, E.O. Wilson, Steven Jay Gould, Susan Sontag, John Updike, Edward Said, Henry Louis Gates, Camille Paglia. In my opinion, our other two distinguished panelists, Gerald Early and Steve Pinker, have recently entered, or are in the process of entering, Level III.
Of course, these various levels and categories are not as distinct as I have made them, boundaries are blurred, etc.
Responsibilities
One can move slowly and even unconsciously upward through these various levels I have described. But I would argue that one should be conscious of the movement, and especially the increasing degree of responsibilites. In particular, Level III should be entered with caution and respect. Here, there is the greatest responsibility. The public intellectual is often speaking about things beyond his or her area of expertise. Some people will refuse such an invitation, others will accept the responsibility that has been given them.
Einstein, an inward and essentially shy person, but at the same time a man of great self confidence and awareness of his stature, and accepted the responsibility of the Level III public intellectual.
Such a person must be careful, he must be aware of the limitations of his knowledge, he must acknowledge his personal prejudices because he is being asked to speak for a whole realm of thought, he must be aware of the huge possible consequences of what he says and writes and does. He has become, in a sense, public property because he represents something large to the public. He has become an idea himself, a human striving. He has enormous power to influence and change, and he must wield that power with respect.
When Steven Jay Gould is asked to speak about the recent Kansas ruling that Creationism must be taught along side Evolutionary Biology in science classes, or when Salman Rushdie is asked to speak to the National Press Club about freedom of speech, these people have been asked to accept a great responsibility. They are private citizens but they are also public servants, they are individual thinkers but their individuality also dissolves and rises and merges with the spirits of all the men and women who have thought and imagined and struggled before them.
A Recent Trend
I want to end with a few brief remarks about a recent new feature in the geography of the public intellectual: many more such people, these days, have come from the sciences.
I think I have a part of an explanation. For many years, it was considered a taboo, a professional stigma, for scientists to spend any time at all in writing for the general public. Such an activity was considered a waste of precious time, a soft activity, even a feminine activity. The proper job of a scientist was to penetrate the secrets of the physical world. Anything else was a waste of time, it was dumbing down.
The tide began to change in the 1960s with the books Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, The Chracter of Physical Law by Richard Feynman, and The Double Helix by James Watson. Then the big sea change occurred in the 1970s. I think of such books as
* Migraine and Awakenings by Olive Sacks,
* Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas,
* Ever Since Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould,
* Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan,
* The Ascent of Man by Jacob Brownoski,
* Disturbing the Universe by Freeman Dyson,
* The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg.
These popular books, written by major scientists with unquestionable stature in their scientific fields, had the effect of legitimizing public discourse as a worthwhile activity for scientists. When I myself began publishing essays in the early 1980s, and I know that I was influenced by the examples of Thomas, Gould, and Sagan.
In the last ten years, we have seen an explosion of popular books written by scientists, and a fraction of these authors will move into the Levels II and III that I have described.
Just a few words about my own case: My professional career began as a physicist, but I was always passionate about th humanities and the arts as well, from a young age. After becoming an assistant professor of astronomy at Harvard, in the mid 1970s, I started in the late 1970s writing popular articles about science, magazine pieces, encyclopedia articles. The stigma within the scientific community of this kind of soft activity was very real at that time, and I could feel it. However, I had spent a couple of years at Cornell and was inspired by Carl Sagan.
In the 1980s, my public activities drifted into essays about the human side of sience, and then in the 1990s, books of fiction based upon the scientific mentality. My next book will take the final reckless leap, a novel about the American obssession with speed, efficiency, and money, and what this obssession has done to our minds and our spirits. The novel has no science in it all, yet I think it has been shaped by my having lived in that world and its mentality.
“知识分子”大家谈
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-176-9355.html
上一篇：能源问题的诺贝尔论坛
下一篇：新书推荐：David Tannor的量子力学导论
