Amia Srinivasan on Utopian Feminism (Ep. 132)

Not even speaking about the utopia, just speaking about how we should think about performative utterances right now, I think we need to address them with a great deal of contextual sensitivity and think about, in general, what is happening in these particular cases.

甚至不谈论乌托邦，只是谈论我们现在应该如何思考表演性话语，我认为我们需要以极大的语境敏感性来解决它们，并总体上思考这些特定情况下发生的事情。

What seems to be problematic might not be.

看起来有问题的事情可能没有问题。

But then, let’s be honest, if you’ve spent any time in a comedy club — and I recently did that when I was last in LA — there is just a lot of quite naked sexism there.

但是，说实话，如果你曾经在喜剧俱乐部呆过——而且我最近在洛杉矶的时候也这么做过——那里有很多赤裸裸的性别歧视。

It’s pretty shocking — despite the fact of this feminist revolution in comedy — just how much stand-up comedy is really quite comedically boring and sexist.

这是相当令人震惊的——尽管喜剧中存在着这场女权主义革命——单口喜剧在喜剧上确实很无聊，而且带有性别歧视。

Now, there’s this question about — I take it that one of the thoughts you have is something like humor —

现在，有一个关于 —— 我认为你的想法之一是幽默之类的东西 ——

What is very limited is the thought — and I’m not suggesting that you’re advocating for this thought — but the thought that you basically need structures of organized political oppression like racism to have humor.

非常有限的是这样的想法——我并不是建议你提倡这种想法，而是认为你基本上需要像种族主义这样有组织的政治压迫结构才能有幽默感。

The Greeks had humor without having racism.

希腊人有幽默感，但没有种族主义。

They had other systems of domination, but they had a great and advanced sense of humor, often directed at intellectuals and philosophers, who, I think, are often very much a worthy target.

他们有其他的统治体系，但他们有一种伟大而先进的幽默感，通常针对知识分子和哲学家，我认为他们往往是一个非常有价值的目标。

I think there can be this view on which ending forms of domination and oppression somehow drains life of all that is special and textured about it: humor, love, intimacy, friendship.

我认为可能有这样一种观点，即结束形式的统治和压迫在某种程度上耗尽了生活中所有特殊和有质感的东西：幽默、爱、亲密、友谊。

I just don’t think that’s true.

我只是认为那不是真的。

I think, in fact, what the end of domination would do is release us more fully into the specific things that make human life worth living, including humor.

我认为，事实上，统治的终结会让我们更充分地投入到使人类生活有价值的具体事物中，包括幽默。

Let me ask, what parameter values would have to be different for you to end up as mostly a social conservative?

让我问一下，哪些参数值必须有所不同才能使您最终成为主要的社会保守派？

You don’t have to think the values are that way, but what does that counterfactual look like?

你不必认为价值观是这样的，但是这个反事实是什么样的呢？

I think there’s a very clear case grounded in basic political considerations for, and ethical considerations for, why we should decriminalize sex work totally.

我认为有一个非常明确的案例，基于基本的政治考虑和道德考虑，为什么我们应该将性工作完全非刑罪化。

But I do think there are other cases where, for example, we’re thinking about how to deal with sexually abusive men or the relationship between radical politics and state power, where we have to be more circumspect and ambivalent.

但我确实认为还有其他情况，例如，我们在考虑如何处理性虐待男性或激进政治与国家权力之间的关系，我们必须更加谨慎和矛盾。

I don’t want to say that my general political outlook is one of ambivalence.

我不想说我的总体政治观点是矛盾的。

What’s the closest path counterfactually — is that the question — between me and a conservative worldview?

反事实最​​接近的路径是什么 ——这就是我和保守派世界观之间的问题吗？

I can tell you the parts of conservatism that are most attractive —

我可以告诉你保守主义最有吸引力的部分 ——

There’s a question about how you make room for those things in a society that’s also radically democratic and plural.

问题是如何在一个极其民主和多元化的社会中为这些事物腾出空间。

I think liberalism’s answer hasn’t been a hugely successful one, and so the left has to offer an alternative vision on which you can have real community affinity, certain forms of collective ritual tradition, but in ways that aren’t oppressive.

我认为自由主义的答案并不是一个非常成功的答案，因此左派必须提供一种替代愿景，在这种愿景中，你可以拥有真正的社区亲和力，某些形式的集体仪式传统，但以不具有压迫性的方式。

I suppose that my closest path to conservatism would be if I were the kind of person — which I’m not — who just thinks that, actually, the only plausible model for those things is a nonsecular, broadly speaking religious, but also culturally and ethnically insular vision of community.

我想，我最接近保守主义的道路就是，如果我是这样一种人——“但我不是”——他只是认为，实际上，这些事情唯一合理的模式是非世俗的、广义上的宗教，但也是文化和种族上孤立的社区愿景。

I in no way endorse that, but I think that I have, and we on left, generally — I’m not including you — people who are on the left, generally, do have more time for that part of the conservative critique than just liberals who think that “Well, no, you can just have a basic pluralistic society in which everyone is, within certain constraints, able to live their vision of the good life so long as it doesn’t impinge on anyone else’s ability to do the same, and that’s totally workable.”

我绝不赞同这一点，但我认为我是这样的，而且我们左派一般来说 ——我不包括你——一般来说，左派人士确实比自由主义者有更多的时间来进行保守派批评，他们认为“好吧，不，你可以拥有一个基本的多元化社会，在这个社会中，每个人在一定的限制下都能够实现自己对美好生活的愿景，只要它不影响其他人的能力”做同样的事情，这是完全可行的。”

I think that vision has left us in a place of mass alienation, unhappiness, and a certain spiritual vacuity.

我认为这种愿景让我们陷入了一种普遍疏离、不快乐和某种精神空虚的境地。

You can have that starting point and go in very different ways, and you can go very right-wing from that starting point.

你可以有这样的起点，并以非常不同的方式前进，你可以从这个起点走向非常右翼的方向。

That’s just not the way I go.

那不是我要走的路。

On whether differences between men and women will persist

关于男性和女性之间的差异是否会持续存在

When things are very bad, men and women, in certain ways, are forced to become similar.

当事情非常糟糕时，男人和女人在某些方面被迫变得相似。

As things get better, they seem to become more different.

随着事情变得更好，它们似乎变得更加不同。

Are you comfortable with the probable reality that in a feminist utopia, men and women will be more different than they are today, overall, on average?

您是否对这样一个可能的现实感到满意：在女权主义乌托邦中，男性和女性总体上平均而言将比今天更加不同？

I think it would be just as Mill thought.

我想事情会像密尔想的那样。

It was ridiculous to try and ascertain what women were innately oriented towards doing or what their capacities were under the conditions of 19th-century patriarchal England.

在 19 世纪父权制的英国条件下，试图确定女性天生会做什么或她们的能力是什么，这是荒谬的。

I think it’s pretty ridiculous to try and read it off of the differentials between Iran and the Nordic countries.

我认为试图从伊朗和北欧国家之间的差异来解读它是非常荒谬的。

Suppose that in the world you’re imagining .

假设在您想象的世界中。

.

。

.

。

so, I’m imagining a world in which gender doesn’t exist.

所以，我正在想象一个不存在性别的世界。

You have people with varying different kinds of bodies, so as to restate your hypothetical is the question, how would I feel about a world in which people who are female-bodied gravitated towards certain things, and people who are male-bodied gravitated towards other things?

你有不同身体类型的人，为了重申你的假设，问题是，如果一个世界上女性身体的人倾向于某些事物，而男性身体的人倾向于其他事物，我会有什么感觉？

These are the kinds of things that the feminists of the late ’60s and the early ’70s — the radical feminists of the women’s liberation movement — they thought those things were just trivial.

这些事情在六十年代末、七十年代初的女权主义者——“妇女解放运动中的激进女权主义者”——看来都是小事一桩。

They demanded them, but they thought that they should be answerable very quickly.

他们要求他们，但他们认为他们应该很快回答。

Now, they were wrong about that.

现在，他们错了。

They were wrong about just how deeply entrenched the status quo was.

他们对现状根深蒂固的认识是错误的。

They were also wrong about the rise of the new right in the US and the UK.

他们对美国和英国新右翼崛起的看法也是错误的。

But their sights have always been set on something far more demanding than what we see in the Nordic countries today.

但他们的目标始终是比我们今天在北欧国家看到的要求更高的东西。

That strikes me as epistemologically nihilistic in a way, and that sooner or later, you’re going to use cross-sectional evidence, such as comparing sex workers in New Zealand to sex workers in Germany, in ways that are inconsistent with your broader skepticism about cross-sectional evidence.

在我看来，这在某种程度上是认识论虚无主义的，而且迟早你会使用横截面证据，例如将新西兰的性工作者与德国的性工作者进行比较，其方式与你对横截面证据的更广泛的怀疑不一致。

No?

不？

Then you have countries like the Nordic countries, which experiment with the so-called Nordic model, which are supposed to attack demand but not supply.

然后还有像北欧国家这样的国家，它们正在尝试所谓的北欧模式，该模式应该攻击需求而不是供应。

You have countries like the US where you, again, have sex work, but it has a different regulatory form.

在像美国这样的国家，你也可以从事性工作，但它有不同的监管形式。

New Zealand, New South Wales .

新西兰、新南威尔士州。

.

。

.

。

There have been very intensive studies about the different effects on sex workers in these different regimes, and sex workers write about these things all the time.

关于这些不同政权对性工作者的不同影响已经进行了非常深入的研究，性工作者一直在写这些事情。

It’s not like I’m a nihilist whatsoever, or certainly not a skeptic.

我并不是一个虚无主义者，或者肯定不是一个怀疑论者。

I think we should look at the evidence.

我认为我们应该看看证据。

But I think we should also be intensely cautious about drawing precisely those conclusions that have been drawn over and over again in the history of thinking about women and men, and thinking about gender conclusions that would want to suggest that women are innately drawn towards certain forms of activity and labor and self-expression.

但我认为，我们也应该非常谨慎地准确得出那些在思考女性和男性的历史中反复得出的结论，并思考性别结论，这些结论会表明女性天生就被某些形式的活动、劳动和自我表达所吸引。

I think we should also be intensely cautious about drawing precisely those conclusions that have been drawn over and over again in the history of thinking about women and men, and thinking about gender conclusions that would want to suggest that women are innately drawn towards certain forms of activity and labor and self-expression.

我认为，我们还应该非常谨慎地准确得出那些在思考女性和男性的历史中反复得出的结论，并思考性别结论，这些结论会表明女性天生就被某些形式的活动、劳动和自我表达所吸引。

Just to give you some examples here.

这里只是给大家举一些例子。

Have you looked at the data on gendering in infancy?

您看过有关婴儿期性别的数据吗？

The way in which you can get young children — and by the way, this happens in the Nordic countries as well — they can actually identify those toys that are associated with girls and boys, pre-verbally.

你可以让幼儿的方式 ——顺便说一句，这也发生在北欧国家—— 他们实际上可以在语言之前识别出那些与女孩和男孩相关的玩具。

There’s also data that shows that the way that parents interact with their infants differs greatly, depending on the infant’s sex.

还有数据表明，父母与婴儿互动的方式根据婴儿的性别而有很大差异。

Boy children are allowed to roam more freely on the ground.

男孩们可以更自由地在地面上漫步。

They are picked up less often, held less often.

它们被拿起的次数较少，持有的次数也较少。

They’re described in different terms.

它们以不同的术语进行描述。

Boys are bold and energetic and creative.

男孩们大胆、充满活力、富有创造力。

Girls are sweet and pretty.

女孩子都是甜美又漂亮的。

The idea that there’s any example of a known society where we’re so distant from that, such that we can start to get a good grip on what women and men are innately like, I think, is epistemically naive.

我认为，如果有任何一个已知社会的例子，我们与那个社会如此遥远，以至于我们可以开始很好地了解女性和男性的本质，我认为，这种想法在认识上是天真的。

I’m not saying that this stuff isn’t interesting, and you might end up being right in the end.

我并不是说这些东西不有趣，你最终可能是对的。

I might end up being wrong.

我最终可能会错了。

I also think one error that is consistently made in this discourse, in this kind of conversation about what’s innate or what’s natural, is to think about what’s natural in terms of what’s necessary.

我还认为，在这种关于什么是天生的或什么是自然的对话中，一贯犯的一个错误就是从必要的角度来思考什么是自然的。

This is a point that Shulamith Firestone made a very long time ago, but that very few people register, which is that — and it was actually made again to me recently by a philosopher of biology, which is, “Look what’s natural isn’t what’s necessary.”

这是舒拉米斯·费尔斯通（Shulamith Firestone）很久以前就说过的一个观点，但很少有人注意到，那就是——而且实际上最近一位生物学哲学家又向我重复了这一点，那就是，“看看自然的东西并不是必需的。”

It’s extraordinary.

这是非凡的。

It’s not even like what’s natural offers a good equilibrium point.

它甚至不像天然的东西能提供良好的平衡点。

Think about how much time you and I spend sitting around.

想想你和我花了多少时间坐着。

Completely unnatural for humans to sit around, yet we’re in this equilibrium point where vast majority of humans just sit around all day.

对于人类来说，坐着是完全不自然的，但我们正处于这个平衡点，绝大多数人只是整天坐着。

So, I think there’s a separate question about what humans — as essentially social, cultured, acculturating creatures — what our world should look like.

因此，我认为还有一个单独的问题，即人类————本质上是社会性的、有文化的、文化适应的生物————我们的世界应该是什么样子。

And that’s distinct from the question of what natural predispositions we might have.

这与我们可能具有哪些自然倾向的问题不同。

It’s not unrelated, but I don’t think any of us think we should just be forming societies that simply allow us to express our most “natural orientations.”

这并非无关紧要，但我认为我们中没有人认为我们应该建立一个仅仅让我们表达我们最“自然的倾向”的社会。

I’m opposed to racial segregation.

我反对种族隔离。

That is true.

确实如此。

I’m not opposed to other forms of “segregation,” like age segregation.

我不反对其他形式的“隔离”，例如年龄隔离。

I think, for example, that it’s okay that nightclubs shouldn’t allow kids under 18 if you’re in this country, or under 21.

例如，我认为，如果你在这个国家，夜总会不应该允许 18 岁以下的儿童进入，或者 21 岁以下的儿童。

I think there are interesting questions here.

我认为这里有一些有趣的问题。

I don’t play chess, and I don’t follow competitive chess, so I don’t really have a view.

我不下棋，也不关注国际象棋比赛，所以我没有什么看法。

On consent

经同意

A necessary condition but, I think, not sufficient because I think there are cases of ethically problematic sex that are consensual.

这是一个必要条件，但我认为这还不够，因为我认为存在道德上有问题的性行为是双方同意的情况。

One example I talk about in the book is professor-student sex.

我在书中谈到的一个例子是教授与学生的性行为。

Obviously, sometimes, professor-student sex, like sex between adults in general, can be nonconsensual.

显然，有时，教授与学生之间的性行为，就像一般成年人之间的性行为一样，可能是非自愿的。

But I think there are plenty of cases of professor-student sex which are uncontroversially — or should be uncontroversially — understood to be consensual, but nonetheless are problematic.

但我认为，有很多教授与学生发生性关系的案例，毫无争议——或者应该毫无争议——被理解为是双方同意的，但仍然存在问题。

There’s a deeper feminist critique of the role of consent in sex, which objects to the preconditions that make the ritual of consent-asking and consent-giving necessary in the first place.

女权主义对同意在性行为中的作用有更深入的批评，它反对首先需要征求同意和给予同意的仪式的先决条件。

When you say to someone, “Well, imagine sexual interaction without the ritual of consent-giving and consent-asking,” they just imagine sexual violation.

当你对某人说：“好吧，想象一下没有给予同意和征求同意的仪式的性互动”时，他们只是想象性侵犯。

But think about all of the times you interact with — I don’t know — a really old friend.

但想想你与 —— 我不知道 —— 一位真正的老朋友互动的所有时间。

Your old high school or college buddy loses a child, and you put your arm around them, and you console them — something we haven’t done a huge amount of under the pandemic.

你的高中或大学老朋友失去了一个孩子，你用手臂搂住他们，安慰他们 ——这是我们在大流行期间没有做的事情。

You don’t ask for that consent.

您无需征求同意。

You don’t ask for consent to be able to put your arm around your buddy.

您不需要征得您的同意就可以用手臂搂住您的好友。

The reason is because the nature of your relationship as friends involves a fine attunement to your friend’s desires and needs and wants.

原因是因为你们作为朋友的关系的本质涉及到对朋友的愿望、需求和愿望的良好协调。

You don’t go into that interaction with the friend thinking, “I want something that they might not want.” There isn’t a kind of implicit presupposed mismatch of desires or wants.

在与朋友互动时，你不会想：“我想要他们可能不想要的东西。”不存在一种隐含的预设的欲望或需求的不匹配。

It’s not a contractual exchange.

这不是合同交换。

It’s not a negotiation.

这不是谈判。

You wouldn’t want to put your arm around your friend if that’s not what your friend needed at that moment.

如果那不是你的朋友当时所需要的，你就不会想用手臂搂住你的朋友。

The very fact that we have such an emphasis on consent when it comes to sexual relations, I think, reveals a certain set of background conditions about how we interact sexually, which is to say, there are lots and lots of cases where one party basically wants to have something that the other person doesn’t really want, in some sense, to give, where there is a misalliance.

我认为，我们在性关系方面如此强调同意这一事实，揭示了我们如何进行性互动的一系列背景条件，也就是说，在很多很多情况下，一方基本上想要拥有另一方在某种意义上并不真正想要给予的东西，这就存在不合作。

There isn’t that same level of attunement.

没有相同程度的协调。

To put it really crudely, lots of people are turned on by the fact that another person, in some sense, doesn’t really want to have that sex, so then the ritual of consent becomes necessary.

粗俗地说，很多人都会因为另一个人在某种意义上并不真正想要发生这种性行为而感到兴奋，因此同意的仪式就变得必要了。

It’s not the only reason consent matters.

这并不是同意很重要的唯一原因。

The other reason consent might matter — and you see this very clearly in BDSM practices — is that sometimes we just don’t know what the other person wants because sex is really complex, and people can perform in different ways.

同意可能很重要的另一个原因是，有时我们只是不知道对方想要什么，因为性确实很复杂，人们可以以不同的方式表现。

So sometimes, it’s really important to just ask someone straight up.

所以有时候，直接询问别人是非常重要的。

On sex vouchers

关于性优惠券

Incel means a member of a certain particular subculture.

Incel 是指某个特定亚文化的成员。

I think this is really politically important because there are lots of men — not just men with disabilities — lots of men, lots of women who are romantically and sexually lonely in various kinds of ways, who fall under the descriptor “involuntary celibate” but wouldn’t describe themselves as incels, and certainly wouldn’t subscribe to incel ideology.

我认为这在政治上确实很重要，因为有很多男人——“不仅仅是残疾男人”——很多男人、女人在爱情和性方面都以各种方式感到孤独，他们属于“非自愿独身者”的描述，但不会将自己描述为非独身者，当然也不会认同非独身者的意识形态。

I think it’s extraordinary political importance not to use the word incel to simply mean involuntary celibate.

我认为不使用 incel 这个词来简单地表示非自愿独身是非常重要的政治意义。

When you take a population of women who are doing sex work because of those reasons, and then you create a voucher system of the kind you’re describing, I think you’re in problematic territory.

当你选取一群因为这些原因而从事性工作的女性，然后你创建一个你所描述的那种代金券系统时，我认为你正处于有问题的领域。

Which isn’t to say —

这并不是说 ——

The problem is, thinking about something like that, or thinking more generally about the redistribution of sex, or thinking about sex as a thing to be potentially redistributed, is that we’re working against a background, a patriarchal backdrop on which men routinely think that they are sexually entitled to women’s bodies.

问题是，思考类似的问题，或者更普遍地思考性的重新分配，或者将性视为一种可能被重新分配的东西，是我们在一个父权制的背景下工作，在这个背景下，男性通常认为他们在性方面有权获得女性的身体。

When that’s the real social backdrop, it becomes, I think, very difficult to have these further questions about things like sexual surrogacy in a way that doesn’t problematically feed into the reinscription of women as having a role to play in the sexual servicing of men.

我认为，当这是真正的社会背景时，就很难对性代孕等问题提出进一步的问题，而不会有问题地重新定义女性在为男性提供性服务中发挥的作用。

This is the view you get from sex workers.

这是你从性工作者那里得到的观点。

Radical sex workers like Juno Mac and Molly Smith, who are the authors of Revolting Prostitutes, are very uninterested in answering the question of should we, in an ideal or even in the real world, have sex workers being subsidized by the state to have sex with disabled people, because they think it’s a massive distraction from the reality of sex work for the vast majority of sex workers, which is true.

《反抗的妓女》的作者朱诺·麦克和莫莉·史密斯等激进的性工作者对于回答这样的问题非常不感兴趣：在理想中甚至在现实世界中，我们是否应该让性工作者接受国家补贴与残疾人发生性关系，因为他们认为这极大地分散了绝大多数性工作者对性工作现实的注意力，这是事实。

So, what I want to know — and I don’t know enough about — is, what are the effects on the actual women who engage in sex work in the Netherlands?

所以，我想知道的是，这对荷兰从事性工作的实际女性有什么影响？

How much do they get paid for this?

他们为此得到多少钱？

Are they happy to be doing this?

他们乐意这样做吗？

To what extent are they subjected to sexual violence because of this?

他们在多大程度上因此而遭受性暴力？

How does this change and inflect their labor rights?

这如何改变和影响他们的劳工权利？

That is the question.

这就是问题所在。

This is not an orthogonal ideological issue.

这不是一个正交的意识形态问题。

I think I will just get off at the very start, when you’re just thinking sex is this basic need for men.

我想我会从一开始就开始，当你只是认为性是男人的基本需求时。

I think that, if we’re talking about pernicious ideology, that is very much a piece of a pernicious patriarchal ideology that thinks that, for men, sex is this basic good.

我认为，如果我们谈论的是有害的意识形态，那么这在很大程度上是一种有害的父权意识形态的一部分，这种意识形态认为，对于男性来说，性是基本的善。

It’s like food or water.

就像食物或水一样。

The women who refuse to have sex with men are depriving them of a basic necessity.

拒绝与男性发生性关系的女性剥夺了她们的基本必需品。

Women are both that necessity and the gatekeepers of it.

女性既是这种必需品，又是它的看门人。

Part of the reason this is such bullshit is that, if you look at the incels who spend all of their time ranting in precisely these terms online — they are not interested, on the whole, in having sex with sex workers.

这真是废话的部分原因是，如果你看看那些把所有时间都花在网上用这些术语咆哮的非独身者，他们总体上对与性工作者发生性关系不感兴趣。

And you know who else they aren’t interested in having sex with?

你知道他们对与谁发生性关系不感兴趣吗？

They’re not interested in having sex with nonwhite women, with women who are not stereotypically attractive — women who are fat, women who are shy, women who are on the autistic spectrum, women who are socially awkward.

他们对与非白人女性发生性关系不感兴趣，与那些不具有典型吸引力的女性——肥胖的女性、害羞的女性、患有自闭症的女性、不善社交的女性发生性关系。

Why?

为什么？

Because they claim that what they’re upset about is the deprivation of this basic need, which is sex, but what they’re actually upset about is their perceived low status in that sexual hierarchy, a hierarchy that rewards men who supposedly have or who get to have sex or are attractive to high-status women.

因为他们声称他们感到不安的是这种基本需求的剥夺，即性，但他们实际上感到不安的是他们在性等级中被认为的低地位，这种等级奖励那些据称有或能够发生性行为或对高地位女性有吸引力的男性。

So yes, I do think that you cannot have these conversations about sex work and how to legislate it without centrally engaging with questions about patriarchy.

所以，是的，我确实认为，如果不集中讨论有关父权制的问题，就无法进行有关性工作以及如何立法的对话。

On declining population growth

关于人口增长下降

Let me ask you, what should we do to increase fertility rates?

请问大家，提高生育率应该怎么做？

Or is it part of your utopia that we just let population keep on shrinking?

或者我们任由人口不断减少是你乌托邦的一部分吗？

I was just pointing out that if a country like the US is worried about its population issue, it should be thinking about its immigration policies.

我只是指出，像美国这样的国家如果担心人口问题，就应该考虑移民政策。

This is actually a point that’s made by a very right-wing Catholic like Adrian Vermeule.

这实际上是阿德里安·维穆勒（Adrian Vermeule）这样的右翼天主教徒提出的观点。

It’s one of the things that I think he’s right about.

这是我认为他是对的事情之一。

Of course, he only wants to allow Catholics in.

当然，他只想让天主教徒进来。

But in any case, look, the anxiety in so many of these countries about dwindling population is about demographic threat.

但无论如何，你看，许多国家对人口减少的焦虑是对人口威胁的担忧。

It’s not about population as such.

这与人口本身无关。

It’s not about having more workers.

这并不是为了拥有更多的工人。

It’s not about having —

这不是关于拥有 ——

But I just wanted to say — because so many people listen to your podcast — that the first thing we should do when we’re talking about dropping fertility rates is think about immigration policy.

但我只是想说 —— 因为很多人听你的播客 —— 当我们谈论降低生育率时，我们应该做的第一件事就是考虑移民政策。

I’m delighted to hear that you are an open-borders person.

我很高兴听到你是一个开放边界的人。

Let’s go on to the next question.

我们继续下一个问题。

Someone like Adrienne Rich wants to distinguish between the potentiality of human reproduction from the actual political institution that is motherhood.

像艾德丽安·里奇这样的人想要区分人类繁衍的潜力和母性这一实际的政治制度。

What is that institution?

那个机构是什么？

It’s an institution that has privatized the responsibility of childbirth, childcare, child-rearing into individual families.

这是一个将分娩、育儿、抚养孩子的责任私有化给各个家庭的机构。

There’s still no universal 24-hour childcare.

仍然没有普遍的 24 小时托儿服务。

The idea that you’re doing everything you could to encourage people to have children in a society in which, precisely because you implicitly recognize — as does every good economist — that social reproduction is a form of labor on which society depends, but at the same time don’t compensate women who disproportionately perform that labor in any way, and make their lives harder than ever before.

你正在竭尽全力鼓励人们生孩子，正是因为你隐含地认识到“社会再生产是社会所依赖的一种劳动形式”，但同时却不会补偿那些以任何方式不成比例地从事这种劳动的妇女，并使她们的生活比以往任何时候都更加困难。

That’s just the kind of central contradiction of early 21st-century political life in a place like the US.

这正是美国这样的国家 21 世纪初政治生活的核心矛盾。

What are some things you want?

你想要什么？

Universal 24-hour childcare, universal excellent pre-K education.

普及24小时托儿服务，普及优质学前教育。

You want non-stagnating wages that don’t presuppose two full-time workers.

你想要不停滞的工资，但不以两名全职工人为前提。

You want better maternal healthcare.

您想要更好的孕产妇保健。

You want free universal healthcare — all of these basic social provisions.

你想要免费的全民医疗保健 ——所有这些基本的社会保障。

Now, you might think, “Okay, but Scandinavian countries, which have some of this stuff, don’t .

现在，您可能会想，“好吧，但是斯堪的纳维亚国家没有这些东西。

.

。

.” Well, they have some of this stuff.

”。嗯，他们有一些这样的东西。

Again, the question is, I think you’re already anticipating a settlement, so you’re reading off the data and saying, “Oh, it doesn’t matter if we did all of that.

同样，问题是，我认为你已经在期待和解，所以你在读数据并说，“哦，如果我们做了所有这些并不重要。

Even if we did all of that, we would have dwindling fertility rates.” I want to say, “Try it and see.”

即使我们做到了这一切，生育率也会下降。”我想说：“尝试一下看看。”

I think you have to rethink also the nuclear family.

我认为你也必须重新考虑核心家庭。

I think you have to rethink patterns of family-making.

我认为你必须重新思考家庭组建的模式。

Look at what happened during the pandemic.

看看疫情期间发生了什么。

Every woman who thought she was in an egalitarian relationship with a man — almost every woman found out that she wasn’t.

每个认为自己与男人处于平等关系的女人——几乎每个女人都发现事实并非如此。

Why?

为什么？

Because she still did all of her employment work, and then also had to take the vast majority of social reproduction and childcare.

因为她仍然完成了所有的就业工作，然后还要承担绝大多数的社会再生产和育儿工作。

That work is systematically undervalued.

这项工作被系统性地低估了。

It’s also systematically undervalued when it’s privatized in the form of healthcare and nursing.

当它以医疗保健和护理形式私有化时，它的价值也会被系统性地低估。

A lot would need to change.

很多事情都需要改变。

You might want to just hold out and say, “It’s only under conditions of intense coercion and desperation that women are willing to have children.” If that turns out to be right, I’ll bite the bullet and just say, fine.

你可能只想坚持说：“只有在强烈的胁迫和绝望的情况下，女性才愿意生孩子。”如果事实证明这是正确的，我会硬着头皮说，好吧。

On the unified theory of Amia Srinivasan

论阿米亚·斯里尼瓦桑的统一理论

If I think about everything you’ve done — your interest in the genealogical fallacy; what seems to be a broader interest in the biographical origins of ideas, as evidenced by your love for Dan Chiasson’s poetry book; or your interest in our own mental states not being transparently known to us; your new book called The Right to Sex — what’s your best account of the bigger picture of how all that fits together?

如果我想想你所做的一切 —— 你对谱系谬误的兴趣；您对丹·奇亚森 (Dan Chiasson) 的诗集的喜爱就证明了您对思想的传记起源似乎有更广泛的兴趣；或者我们没有清楚地了解您对我们自己的心理状态的兴趣；你的新书《性的权利》——你对这一切如何结合在一起的大局最好的描述是什么？

Is it you as prophet and world maker, and these are different parts of the bigger picture?

是你作为先知和世界创造者，而这些是更大图景的不同部分吗？

Just tell me.

告诉我吧。

Let it make sense for me because I see there’s something there, and you haven’t spelled it out yet.

让它对我来说有意义，因为我看到那里有一些东西，而你还没有拼写出来。

You get the question?

你明白这个问题了吗？

I don’t think I have a great account of what that is.

我不认为我对那是什么有很好的解释。

I think — and this speaks in part to one of my preoccupations which you identified, which is the nontransparency of ourselves to ourselves, the extent to which we cannot know ourselves.

我认为——这在一定程度上说明了我所关注的问题之一，即我们对自己的不透明性，即我们无法了解自己的程度。

In some cases, I think that can lead to what I’ve called a tragic worldview, but it also implies the necessity of social relations for forms of self-understanding.

在某些情况下，我认为这可能会导致我所说的悲剧世界观，但它也暗示了社会关系对于自我理解形式的必要性。

That’s why I was hoping you were going to give me the answer to how this all links up.

这就是为什么我希望你能给我答案，说明这一切是如何联系起来的。

But maybe I can point to a couple of themes that I think speak across the more epistemological parts of my work and more feminist parts, and you can tell me if any of this rings any bells.

但也许我可以指出几个主题，我认为这些主题涵盖了我作品中更多的认识论部分和更多的女权主义部分，你可以告诉我这些主题是否引起任何共鸣。

I have this preoccupation — this is what my dissertation was on — with the limits of self-knowledge.

我全神贯注于自我认识的局限性——这就是我的论文的主题。

Which is not to say that we never know ourselves, but that this kind of, what’s called Cartesian picture — although it’s unfairly attributed to Descartes — Cartesian picture on which our minds are this kind of theater that’s totally knowable, which operates as a kind of compensation for the potential unknowability of the external world .

这并不是说我们永远不了解自己，而是说这种所谓的笛卡尔图画 ——尽管它被不公平地归因于笛卡尔 —— 在笛卡尔图画中，我们的思想是完全可知的戏剧，它作为对外部世界潜在的不可知性的一种补偿。

.

。

.

。

I think that’s a bad picture of the mind, not for the reasons Freud says.

我认为这是一幅糟糕的心灵图景，并不是因为弗洛伊德所说的原因。

I think those reasons are right, but those weren’t the reasons I gave.

我认为这些理由是正确的，但这些不是我给出的理由。

I gave a more technical argument in epistemology.

我在认识论上给出了更技术性的论证。

Once one has that picture, for a reason I won’t totally go into here, it implies that agents can do as best they can, by their own lights, and still get things very wrong, whatever the normative system is.

一旦人们有了这样的想法，出于某种原因，我不会在这里完全讨论，这意味着代理人可以根据自己的观点尽其所能，但仍然会弄错事情，无论规范体系是什么。

No matter how much you try to index normative truths to how things seem from the internal perspective, it’s still going to be the case that our normative performance is hostage to these external forces.

无论你如何努力将规范真理与事物内部的外观联系起来，我们的规范表现仍然会受到这些外部力量的影响。

It gives you this kind of tragic worldview, where how we do in the world depends radically on where we find ourselves in the world, how we’re positioned with relation to the world.

它给了你这种悲剧性的世界观，我们在世界上的表现从根本上取决于我们在世界上的位置，以及我们与世界的关系如何定位。

I think that same spirit of tragedy is built into my feminist outlook.

我认为同样的悲剧精神也融入了我的女权主义观点中。

You called me a utopian.

你称我为乌托邦主义者。

I think, in some sense, that’s right, but I also have a view on which there’s really no progress without regress.

我认为，从某种意义上来说，这是对的，但我也有一个观点，不退步就没有进步。

For example, take decriminalization of sex work.

例如，以性工作非刑事化为例。

I told you I’m adamantly in favor of it, but I think there’s an interesting question about whether decriminalizing sex work would have the hoped-for utopian effect of transforming the basic relations, the wage relation, the relation women have to work, would allow sex workers to refuse sex work.

我告诉过你我坚决支持它，但我认为有一个有趣的问题，即性工作非刑事化是否会产生预期的乌托邦效果，改变基本关系、工资关系、妇女必须工作的关系，是否会允许性工作者拒绝性工作。

Whether decriminalization has this kind of transformative ability, or whether all it would do would be to make sex workers better off as workers, but reinscribe sex work into a capitalist order — that might be tragically true, but we should nonetheless do it.

去罪化是否具有这种变革能力，或者它所做的只是让性工作者作为工作者过得更好，但却将性工作重新纳入资本主义秩序——这可能是悲剧性的事实，但我们仍然应该这样做。

Or take the mass entry of women into the workforce, and the way in which that, on one hand, has obvious benefits for women, and on the other hand, contributes to the demise of the family wage and entraps lots of women in forms of work that are alienating and atomizing.

或者以女性大量进入劳动力市场为例，一方面，这对女性有明显的好处，但另一方面，又导致家庭工资的消亡，并使许多女性陷入疏远和原子化的工作形式。

In particular, and this is something that Black feminists warned against when middle-class white feminists were arguing for mass entry into the workforce, Black feminists were arguing for their right to stay at home and to actually be the beneficiaries of a family wage, which they had never been.

特别是，当中产阶级白人女权主义者主张大规模进入劳动力市场时，黑人女权主义者就在主张自己留在家里的权利，并实际上成为家庭工资的受益者，而这是她们从未享受过的，这是黑人女权主义者所警告的。

I suppose there’s that kind of tragic worldview that maybe crosses over from epistemology into feminism.

我想可能存在着一种从认识论跨越到女权主义的悲剧世界观。

There’s also the interest in genealogy as a method, and world-making as a method, which I have a kind of epistemological interest in.

还有对作为一种方法的谱系学和作为一种方法的世界创造的兴趣，我对此有一种认识论的兴趣。

But then, I’m also drawn to the history of feminist thought because I think of lots of the theorists in the feminist tradition as being those kinds of prophets and world makers, trying to do something where they were engaged in forms of conceptual innovation, which were supposed to actually restructure materiality in some sense.

但是，我也对女权主义思想的历史感兴趣，因为我认为女权主义传统中的许多理论家都是那种先知和世界创造者，试图做一些他们从事概念创新形式的事情，这些创新应该在某种意义上实际上重组物质性。

I think when, for example, prostitutes started calling sex work “work,” calling it “sex work,” they weren’t simply trying to give a new name to something.

例如，我认为，当妓女开始将性工作称为“工作”时，他们不仅仅是想给某些东西起一个新名字。

They were trying to do something, reorient our relationship to this practice, and have lots of downstream material facts in how we relate to that practice.

他们试图做一些事情，重新调整我们与这种实践的关系，并掌握了许多关于我们如何与这种实践相关的下游重要事实。

The history of feminism is full of these attempts at prophecy and world-making.

女权主义的历史充满了这些预言和创造世界的尝试。

That’s another thing.

那是另一回事了。

You’re broadly feminist-Marxist, so you see Marxism, which has too much emphasis on the objective.

你是广泛的女权主义马克思主义者，所以你看到马克思主义，它过于强调目标。

Then you see continental philosophy that has too much emphasis, sometimes, on the subjective.

然后你会看到大陆哲学有时过于强调主观。

The interest in biography, genealogical fallacy, is somehow syncing your subjective experience with what you feel you know is true.

对传记、谱系谬误的兴趣，是以某种方式将你的主观经历与你认为是真实的事情同步起来。

Then there are these broader social structures determining things, and we can’t quite be sure of our own supposedly Cartesian knowledge.

然后还有这些更广泛的社会结构决定事物，我们不能完全确定我们自己所谓的笛卡尔知识。

You want to bring together all those different forces in this broadly consilient picture, in a way that lets you move forward in the Marxian sense of someone determined to change the world, be a prophet, be a world maker, rather than just writing about it.

你想要将所有这些不同的力量聚集在这个广泛一致的画面中，以一种让你以马克思主义的方式前进，决心改变世界，成为一个先知，成为一个世界创造者，而不仅仅是写下它。

But because you see complexities, you need all those things to feed into this big river.

但因为你看到了复杂性，你需要所有这些东西来注入这条大河。

Does that at least make some sense to you?

这至少对你来说有意义吗？

What you describe is also just very recognizable from lots of feminist theorists, who, as you say, found Marx either too objective or too obsessed with “material,” insufficiently interested in the psyche and the psychoanalytic.

你所描述的内容也得到了许多女权主义理论家的认可，正如你所说，他们发现马克思要么过于客观，要么过于痴迷于“物质”，而对心灵和精神分析缺乏足够的兴趣。

So then you bring in Freud, but then Freud and Marx both have their problems, either an unwillingness to read the family, or an overreading and misreading.

那么你引入弗洛伊德，但弗洛伊德和马克思都有他们的问题，要么不愿意阅读家庭，要么过度阅读和误读。

I think that general desire to pick up these various kinds of intellectual strains, which often come out of mass male traditions or traditions founded by men, and then creatively appropriate them and put them in conversation with each other and do something new is very much a feminist tradition of its own.

我认为，人们普遍渴望接受这些不同的知识菌株，这些知识菌株通常来自大众男性传统或男性创立的传统，然后创造性地利用它们，让它们相互对话并做一些新的事情，这在很大程度上是其本身的女权主义传统。

The plays, though, themselves — they were very much inflected by the philosophy I was reading at the time.

不过，这些戏剧本身——它们很大程度上受到了我当时正在读的哲学的影响。

One of the last plays I wrote was about a philosophy professor who had just read too much Kierkegaard, and then one day, when he’s out for a run with his son in Central Park, he tries to sacrifice him, like reliving the Abraham and Isaac story that Kierkegaard meditates on in Fear and Trembling.

我写的最后一部戏剧是关于一位哲学教授刚刚读了太多克尔凯郭尔的作品，然后有一天，当他和儿子在中央公园跑步时，他试图牺牲他，就像重温克尔凯郭尔在《恐惧与颤抖》中沉思的亚伯拉罕和以撒的故事一样。

I think the best theater, even when grounded in a certain philosophical tradition, is one that carries its philosophy very lightly, which I don’t think my plays did.

我认为最好的戏剧，即使是以某种哲学传统为基础的，也是一个非常轻松地承载其哲学的戏剧，而我认为我的戏剧没有做到这一点。

It’s not totally clear to me what I would have done with a law degree.

我不太清楚如果获得了法律学位我会做什么。

It’s more likely that I would have ended up a legal academic, I think, than an actual practicing lawyer, given my dispositions.

考虑到我的性格，我认为我最终更有可能成为一名法律学者，而不是一名真正的执业律师。

What I love in Whitman most of all is the combination of this bombastic, plural, all-encompassing, deeply American, deeply democratic — with a lowercase d — desire to commune with life in all its complexity.

我最喜欢惠特曼的是这种夸张的、多元的、包罗万象的、深刻的美国式、深刻的民主——带有小写的d——渴望与生活的复杂性进行交流的结合。

But that feeling gives way, in Whitman, to these moments of revolt and withdrawal and the desire to preserve the sovereign self.

但在惠特曼身上，这种感觉被这些反抗和退缩的时刻以及维护主权自我的愿望所取代。

I think that is a profound dialectic, one that I can feel play out in my own life, but also seems to me central to much social and political drama.

我认为这是一种深刻的辩证法，我可以感觉到它在我自己的生活中上演，但在我看来，它也是许多社会和政治戏剧的核心。

But he’s also just a beautiful crafter of lines.

但他也是一位美丽的线条工匠。

Everyone in the class surely believes that there are middle-sized objects.

班里的每个人肯定都相信有中等大小的物体。

There are tables and chairs here.

这里有桌子和椅子。

There are people.

有人。

Maybe the people are somehow special and different from the tables and chairs.

也许这里的人有些特殊，与桌椅不同。

We live in this material universe, and this is reality.

我们生活在这个物质宇宙中，这就是现实。

Maybe there’s a higher reality as well, but this is the common-sense view.

也许还有更高的现实，但这是常识性的观点。

I was just shocked because that wasn’t my view at all.

我只是感到震惊，因为那根本不是我的观点。

It wasn’t the view I had been raised to have.

这不是我从小就被灌输的观点。

I quite literally believed that material reality was Maya, was illusion, and that the separateness of persons was also an important illusion.

我确实相信物质现实是玛雅，是幻觉，人的分离也是一个重要的幻觉。

I believe in some sort of metaphysical monism, and this is why I’ve never really done analytic metaphysics, even though I’ve done a huge amount of epistemology.

我相信某种形而上学一元论，这就是为什么我从未真正研究过分析形而上学，尽管我已经研究了大量认识论。

The metaphysics has always seemed to me a starting point that I just find very difficult to get behind.

在我看来，形而上学一直是一个我发现很难落后的起点。

What are my metaphysics now?

我现在的玄学是什么？

I don’t have a worked-out metaphysics.

我没有成熟的形而上学。

I think I’m more inclined now — I’ve been bedded into what Peter van Inwagen called the common Western metaphysics, the kind of common sense — there are middle-sized dry goods.

我想我现在更倾向于 —— 我已经陷入了Peter van Inwagen所说的西方常见形而上学，那种常识 —— 有中等规模的干货。

There are chairs and tables.

有椅子和桌子。

I’m sitting on one.

我坐在其中一个上。

At the same time, I think that, roughly speaking, Hindu perspective is very much with me.

与此同时，我认为，粗略地说，印度教的观点非常适合我。

I just don’t think it can really be philosophically articulated.

我只是认为它无法真正从哲学上阐明。

I don’t think it’s fair — at least, for me, not interestingly put into conversation with analytic arguments about what there is.

我认为这不公平——至少对我来说，没有有趣地与关于存在的分析论证进行对话。

On Bernard Williams and Derek Parfit

关于伯纳德·威廉姆斯和德里克·帕菲特

They are real works of philosophy.

它们是真正的哲学著作。

What they aren’t is a philosopher coming down from his Olympian heights and wheeling out a couple of philosophical distinctions which are supposed to help the masses get clear on things.

他们并不是一位从奥林匹斯山的高度下来并提出一些哲学区别的哲学家，这些区别应该可以帮助大众弄清楚事情。

It’s rather Williams just doing philosophy in a way that’s respectful of an audience, that expects them to do some work but that also does some work on his own part.

相反，威廉姆斯只是以一种尊重观众的方式研究哲学，期望他们做一些工作，但他自己也做了一些工作。

I think that’s very important as a model of how to write about philosophy and how to write for a wider philosophical audience.

我认为这作为如何撰写哲学以及如何为更广泛的哲学受众写作的模型非常重要。

Substantively, there are lots of things that Williams was interested in that I’m interested in.

实质上，有很多威廉姆斯感兴趣的事情我也感兴趣。

Just to take one enduring preoccupation, Williams is very interested in the question of perspective and of points of view.

仅举一个持久的关注点，威廉姆斯对视角和观点问题非常感兴趣。

He’s very interested in the aspiration to a perfectly neutral scientific description of the world, and very interested in the question of what that leaves out.

他对对世界进行完全中立的科学描述的渴望非常感兴趣，并对这种遗漏的问题非常感兴趣。

At the same time, he very much wants to resist a view put forward by Richard Rorty, which begins from a recognition of the contingency of worldviews to a kind of nihilistic or skeptical conclusion about the ability to achieve common understanding.

同时，他非常想抵制理查德·罗蒂提出的一种观点，这种观点从承认世界观的偶然性开始，到对达成共识的能力得出一种虚无主义或怀疑论的结论。

I’m very interested in that specific dialectic because Williams isn’t some knee-jerk realist who just wants to dismiss Rorty and say, “Look, common-sense reasoning just gets us on to the true picture of the world.”

我对这种特定的辩证法非常感兴趣，因为威廉姆斯并不是一个下意识的现实主义者，他只是想驳斥罗蒂并说：“看，常识推理只会让我们了解世界的真实情况。”

He thinks that a purely scientific picture of the world leaves out essential parts of the nature of the world.

他认为纯粹的科学世界观遗漏了世界本质的重要部分。

There, you have to take up a certain kind of normatively loaded perspective to be able to describe the world correctly.

在那里，你必须采用某种具有规范性的视角才能正确描述世界。

He’s, again, in this kind of ambivalent position with respect to these questions about objectivity and value and perspective.

对于这些有关客观性、价值和观点的问题，他再次处于这种矛盾的立场。

I’m very much interested in that locus of problems.

我对这个问题的根源非常感兴趣。

I knew him well, as much as anyone knew him.

我很了解他，就像任何人都了解他一样。

I knew Derek pretty well.

我很了解德里克。

He was my advisor as a graduate student, which isn’t the same thing as being my supervisor.

他是我研究生时期的导师，这和我的导师不是一回事。

We had no formal pedagogical relationship, but he read a lot of my work and commented on it, but he also asked me to comment on his work all of the time.

我们没有正式的教学关系，但他读了很多我的作品并发表了评论，但他也一直要求我评论他的作品。

He did this with everyone.

他对每个人都这样做了。

There was a kind of generosity and openness and a genuine horizontalism about his approach to philosophy that I think is extraordinary.

他的哲学方法有一种慷慨、开放和真正的水平主义，我认为这是非凡的。

You’re trying to rebuild some new kind of utopian libertarianism, based not on capitalism.

你正试图重建某种新型的乌托邦自由主义，而不是基于资本主义。

You see the vanguard here as trans individuals who — precisely because, to so many people, it’s shocking — represent something that is new and breaking down a hierarchy.

你在这里看到的先锋是跨性别者，他们 ——正是因为，对很多人来说，这是令人震惊的—— 代表了一些新的东西，打破了等级制度。

That trans is fundamental to your notion of how to undo previous hierarchies, which are anything but emancipatory, and to rebuild the foundations of some noncapitalistic libertarianism on this idea of ambivalence, complexity, and context, and the sense of novelty, difference, diversity, even shock, from the trans movement, and those are your new foundations.

跨性别对于你的观念至关重要，即如何消除以前的等级制度，这些等级制度根本不是解放性的，并在矛盾、复杂性和背景的观念上重建某种非资本主义自由主义的基础，以及来自跨性别运动的新颖性、差异性、多样性、甚至震撼感，而这些就是你的新基础。

Again, I’m not the canonical source here, but how would you respond to that?

再说一次，我不是这里的权威消息来源，但你对此有何回应？

I also have — and I think you’re also noticing this more — not just an anxiety about state power or forms of authority, but also an active embrace of forms of dissensus, innovation, novelty, boundary-breaking, boundary-crossing.

我也有 ——我想你也注意到了这一点 ——不仅仅是对国家权力或权威形式的焦虑，而且还积极拥抱分歧、创新、新颖、打破界限、跨越界限的形式。

And I think that’s absolutely right.

我认为这是绝对正确的。

I think trans people specifically, but queer people more broadly, often participate in a kind of dissident politics, a politics that wants to slough off certain forms of boundaries and constraints.

我认为，特别是跨性别者，但更广泛的酷儿群体，经常参与一种持不同政见的政治，一种想要摆脱某些形式的界限和约束的政治。

Not always — I don’t think that the rights of queer people have to rest on them being any kind of political vanguard, just to be clear.

并非总是如此——我需要澄清的是，我认为酷儿群体的权利并不一定要依赖于他们成为任何类型的政治先锋。

But I do think it’s true that lots of people who have been active in queer politics and queer theory — Judith Butler is one of them — are interested in articulating the way in which trans lives and queer lives can be seen and read as a form of dissidence against gender, but also against class, against racial domination, and so on.

但我确实认为，许多活跃于酷儿政治和酷儿理论的人——“朱迪思·巴特勒就是其中之一”——都对阐明跨性别生活和酷儿生活如何被视为和解读为反对性别、反对阶级、反对种族统治等的异议形式感兴趣。

But I think there’s another part of me — and this gets back to your earlier question about what’s the closest version of Amia that’s a social conservative — who isn’t totally ready to just embrace a picture that’s fully founded on dissidence and breaking down of hierarchies and norms and boundaries and that’s just about the pursuit of novelty and playfulness.

但我认为我还有另一部分——这又回到了你之前的问题，即社会保守派最接近的阿米亚版本是什么——她还没有完全准备好接受一张完全建立在异议和打破等级制度、规范和界限之上的图片，而这只是为了追求新奇和有趣。

I’m also interested — and I think this is a certain kind of philosophical foundationalism in me that is attracted to the idea of certain human universals and universal forms of human flourishing.

我也很感兴趣——我认为这是我内心的某种哲学基础主义，它被某些人类共性和人类繁荣的普遍形式的理念所吸引。

I think, when we try and articulate what the conditions of human flourishing are, beyond the most basic necessities like food and water and safety and shelter, we start getting ourselves into certain forms of political trouble.

我认为，当我们试图阐明人类繁荣的条件是什么时，除了食物、水、安全和住房等最基本的必需品之外，我们开始陷入某些形式的政治麻烦。

This has historically been a problem for Marxists, where the theory can seem to rest on a particular vision of species-being, a particular humanistic picture of what it is to be human and to live a human life well, but I’m attracted to that thought as well.

这在历史上一直是马克思主义者的一个问题，马克思主义者的理论似乎依赖于物种存在的特定愿景，关于人类是什么以及如何过上美好人类生活的特定人文图景，但我也被这种想法所吸引。

There is that strong part of me, as well, that thinks that there is some content to the question of what it means to live well with each other.

我内心也有一个强烈的部分，认为“和睦相处意味着什么”这个问题是有一定内容的。

It’s not simply about free exploration and the challenging and disruption of boundaries, so I’m ambivalent between those two things.

这不仅仅是关于自由探索以及边界的挑战和破坏，所以我对这两件事感到矛盾。

If you’re suspicious of the state, and if what we know of economics is not so friendly toward actual socialism, why be a socialist?

如果你对国家持怀疑态度，如果我们所了解的经济学对实际的社会主义并不那么友好，那么为什么要成为社会主义者呢？

Or am I misunderstanding what kind of socialist you are?

还是我误解了你是哪种社会主义者？

Or indeed, if you are a socialist.

或者确实，如果你是社会主义者。

But I take it from your writings that you call yourself one.

但我从你的著作中得知，你称自己为一员。

Because universities — for all I love them and admire them and think they play, or can play, an important social function — are pretty class selecting.

因为大学————尽管我爱它们、钦佩它们，并认为它们发挥着或能够发挥重要的社会功能——是非常好的班级选择。

It’s no surprise to me that they skew very liberal and very centrist on the whole.

他们总体上非常自由和非常中间派，这对我来说并不奇怪。

I suppose the question is, look, what do you do about 21st-century capitalism?

我想问题是，看，你对 21 世纪的资本主义有何看法？

I think it’s uncontroversial, or should be uncontroversial, that capitalism — understood not just as an economic system that embraces markets because, at least on how I would use the notion, you can have market socialism — but an economic and a social system that is founded critically on a class distinction.

我认为这是毫无争议的，或者应该是没有争议的，资本主义 ——不仅被理解为一种拥抱市场的经济体系，因为至少在我如何使用这个概念上，你可以拥有市场社会主义——而且是一种严格建立在阶级区别之上的经济和社会体系。

We can also talk about racialized and gendered forms of capitalism.

我们还可以谈论资本主义的种族化和性别化形式。

We won’t go into that, though, here, or we don’t have to.

不过，我们不会在这里讨论这个问题，或者我们没有必要这样做。

It’s uncontroversial, or should be, that capitalism, so understood, has been an extraordinary driver, trivially, of growth, but also of innovation, of the alleviation of mass poverty, of technology, of medicine.

毫无争议，或者说应该如此，按照这样的理解，资本主义不仅是增长的非凡驱动力，也是创新、减轻大规模贫困、技术和医学的非凡驱动力。

There’s no question, I think, about that.

我认为这是毫无疑问的。

I just am pessimistic about the induction from that to the conclusion that capitalism is what we should be doing now.

我只是对由此得出的结论感到悲观：资本主义是我们现在应该做的。

What are the other hallmarks of capitalism?

资本主义的其他特征是什么？

Poverty amidst superabundance.

富余中贫穷。

I think that’s uncontroversial.

我认为这是没有争议的。

A tendency to crisis and break, which always disproportionately harms the already worst off.

危机和崩溃的倾向，总是对本来就处境最糟糕的人造成不成比例的伤害。

The pandemic is a great example of this.

大流行就是一个很好的例子。

A system that produces forms of work that are — we won’t even have to talk about the question of exploitation — but just are subjectively very alienating and immiserating for increasingly many people.

一个系统所产生的工作形式是“我们甚至不必谈论剥削问题”，但主观上却让越来越多的人感到非常疏远和痛苦。

And finally, a system that has produced the single most potent crisis humanity has ever faced, which is climate change.

最后，这个系统产生了人类有史以来面临的最严重的单一危机，那就是气候变化。

So, my question is, what’s next?

所以，我的问题是，下一步是什么？

What do you think?

你怎么认为？

Do you think capitalism is going to solve all of those problems?

您认为资本主义能够解决所有这些问题吗？

I would agree they are.

我同意他们是的。

But they’re also really very, very smart people who’ve looked at the evidence, and they think it’s about tradeoffs, and it’s comparative.

但他们也是非常非常聪明的人，他们研究了证据，他们认为这是一个权衡，而且是比较的。

They think that true socialist economies perform worse on all, or at least most, of the metrics you cite.

他们认为，真正的社会主义经济体在您引用的所有或至少大部分指标上表现更差。

What is it, empirically, that you know that they don’t or I don’t?

根据经验，你知道他们不知道或我不知道是什么？

That’s where I see a big gap between us.

这就是我看到我们之间巨大差距的地方。

Are there tradeoffs?

有权衡吗？

Could it be that there would be less growth?

难道增长会减少吗？

Yes.

是的。

Is that okay?

可以吗？

Yes.

是的。

I think we need to be thinking about a de-growth economy.

我认为我们需要考虑经济的去增长。

Is it the case that you’re going to maybe have less innovation?

您的创新是否会减少？

Possibly.

可能吧。

Are we going to keep on going full steam ahead with a system that causes mass immiseration, that’s exploitative, deeply alienating, is not solving the problems that it says that the profit motive is somehow supposed to magically solve?

我们是否要继续全速前进，推行一个导致大规模贫困、剥削性的、深深疏远的制度，并不能解决它所说的利润动机应该以某种方式神奇地解决的问题？

I think that’s the question.

我想这就是问题所在。

Now, when you’re asking about what kind of socialist models, I’m not proposing — I don’t think any plausible socialist does propose — that what we need is a form of Soviet state socialism.

现在，当你问什么类型的社会主义模式时，我并不是在提议——“我认为没有任何看似合理的社会主义者会提出——”我们需要的是一种形式的苏联国家社会主义。

I think what we need to be thinking about is the radical democratization of the institutions that shape political and social and family life.

我认为我们需要考虑的是塑造政治、社会和家庭生活的机构的彻底民主化。

You’re very, very far away from that in the US.

你与美国的情况相差非常非常远。

What I’m fundamentally interested in is power of people to make decisions directly — not indirectly, through a rigged voting system, which allows them to cast a symbolic vote every four years for one of basically two identical candidates.

我从根本上感兴趣的是人们直接做出决定的权力——而不是通过被操纵的投票系统间接做出决定，该系统允许他们每四年为两个基本相同的候选人之一进行象征性投票。

That’s not what we mean by democracy.

这不是我们所说的民主。

I would hope you would agree as well.

我希望你也同意。

My question is, how do we have people exercising more direct control over the institutions that shape their lives, including corporate institutions?

我的问题是，我们如何让人们对塑造他们生活的机构（包括企业机构）进行更直接的控制？

Thumbnail and header photo credit: Nina Subin

缩略图和标题照片来源：Nina Subin