2012年5月17日星期四

艾略特•史伯岭(Elliot Sperling):关于原因及目的






作者:Elliot Sperling(艾略特•史伯岭),印地安那大学中欧亚研究系
译者:黄潇潇 @xiaoxiaom
文章来源:《文化人类学》(Cultural Anthropology)学刊特刊
标题:On the Questions of Why and to What End
时间:2012年4月1日
原文网址:http://culanth.org/?q=node/532


围绕自2009年2月起在图伯特出现的自焚事件之浪潮争议不断,争论的话题包括自焚者的动机及这种行为的内在价值(或者说根本没有)。这些争论在中国境内和境外并行,有时成为平行不相交的讨论。而流亡博巴(藏人)社会的最初解读,是将自焚归因于失去希望和自暴自弃的绝望。这种解读在流亡生活自身的结构依赖性中最能得到理解;流亡生活常鼓励以悲悯为基础的诉请,以求打动恩人的良心。但一篇文章让这种思路戛然而止,其作者是图伯特事务的长期观察者克里斯托夫•白苏且(Christophe Besuchet)。根据自焚者的已知信息和说过的话,他指出没有证据显示沮丧和绝望;相反,现有的自焚者个人信息虽不完全,却指明这些行动出于坚决的政治蔑视和抵抗。


如果说流亡博巴是依照自身境遇来解读这些行为,那么几位在网上写作的中国自由知识分子也做了同样的事。他们想当然地认为,自焚博巴是在徒劳尝试唤醒当局的良心,冀望他们看到图伯特的苦难之深。这句评价就是一例:“任何自焚都只能说明自焚者对当局心存最后的善意幻想。”境外早期的一些评价也折射出类似观点,认为这些行为浪费生命,而且从根本上违背佛教教义。在这一点上,一位流亡博巴发言人坚决表明赞同《人民日报》上一位中国评论者的言论,后者谴责自焚者违背佛教要义。这种情绪相应地使一些人主张达赖喇嘛呼吁停止这种行为。而这当然会置他于尴尬的处境。若他的呼吁起不了作用,则可能使他的非官方权威遭到质疑。若有作用,则中国宣称他在操纵图伯特境内的抗议时,就更有口实可依。另一位倍受尊敬的喇嘛噶玛巴,在2011年11月公开呼吁勿再自焚,但自焚事件依旧持续。他尚未重申呼吁。有影响力的作家茨仁唯色起初抵制呼吁停止自焚,声称这样的呼吁不会减轻自焚的理由,但在2012年3月4日一位寡妇母亲自焚并留下四个孤儿后,唯色在继续保持尊重自焚者的同时,也呼吁停止更多自焚行为。然而自焚仍然没有停止。


汉人作家王力雄尝试清晰表述一种使博巴抗议超越自焚的方式,他认为自焚确已起到作用:它们鼓舞了博巴的勇气,并极大巩固了博巴在面对中国统治时的团结一心。这其中折射出对现状无比清醒的理解,远甚于认为博巴自焚只是为了打动中国官僚者之心的徒劳举动,或认为这是绝望之举的观点,后者实际上是源于说者自身的狭隘投射。(当然,与一些圈子里的想法相反,图伯特和图伯特问题并不占据中国大多数人的思绪,这点自不用说。)面对图伯特境内对自焚者广泛、正面的同情和支持,对其“不符合佛教教义”的批评并没有得到响应。一条匿名的博巴在博客上的留言或许更典型地体现了境内博巴对自焚的看法;肯定比其他观察者的投射给人的导向更典型:“试问手稍微刮破却大声喊痛的我们有这个胆量为自由事业献出生命吗?……是的,一想到自焚英雄们,我为自己天生的懦弱、胆怯和无用感到惭愧。”


王力雄和茨仁唯色都呼吁博巴超越自焚的策略。与此同时,两人都没有贬低自焚者,更不用说将他们刻画为背弃佛教教义。但在缺失以公民社会的选项来组织和平抗议与异议的大背景下,很难设想出可行的替代策略。自焚是一种独自、个人的抗议行为,只在刹那间即可付诸于行动,当局几乎没有机会阻止或扑灭抗议者所传达的信息。要中止当前的自焚浪潮,可能需要足以产生可比效应的替代策略,或者需要当局让出表达异议的足够空间。


2012年4月1日


链接:


断言自焚违背佛教教义,或者是浪费生命:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/25/tibetan-deaths-violate-buddhism
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7662987.html
http://weblog.savetibet.org/2011/12/02/this-chinese-is-right-about-tibetan-self-immolation/~~V


王力雄的文章:
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30717&t=1


克里斯托夫•白苏且的文章这里可见:
http://www.rangzen.net/2012/01/28/beacons-of-resistance-not-desperate-acts/
(中文译文:是抵抗的灯塔,不是绝望的行动 http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/01/blog-post_29.html


断言博巴自焚是妄图唤醒官方良心:
http://lhakardiaries.com/2011/10/19/how-about-some-respect/(向下滚动,可见笔者的意见)


对于牺牲和怯懦的意见:http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/12/blog-post_29.html


茨仁唯色的呼吁书:
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/03/blog-post_08.html




On the Questions of Why and to What End
Elliot Sperling, Department of Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana Universit
y
Among the controversies surrounding the wave of self-immolations inside Tibet that began in February 2009 are debates over the motives of those committing these acts and their inherent value (or lack thereof). These debates are going on both within and without the People’s Republic of China, at times as parallel, non-intersecting discussions. The first interpretations from the Tibetan exile community ascribed the self-immolations to hopelessness and suicidal despair, an interpretation that can be best understood within the structural dependency built into exile life, which often encourages pathos-based appeals to the consciences of benefactors. But this tack was largely brought to a screeching halt by one essay, written by the long-time observer of Tibetan affairs, Christophe Besuchet. Drawing on what was known about and said by those who committed self-immolation, he pointed out that there was no evidence of depression and despair; that on the contrary, available personal information on those committing self-immolation, though certainly not complete, indicated that the actions were undertaken as acts of strong-willed political defiance and resistance.
If exiles interpreted the acts according to their own circumstances so too did several liberal Chinese writing in cyberspace. There the assumption was that the Tibetans who committed self-immolation were uselessly trying to awaken the consciences of those in authority to the depths of misery inside Tibet. One example is this comment: “Any self-immolation can only illustrate the self-immolator’s clinging to a fantasy of the authorities’ ultimate goodwill.” This was also reflected in some of the early commentary from outside Tibet which held that these actions wasted human lives for nothing; that they were, moreover, fundamentally un-Buddhist. On that point one Tibetan exile spokesperson asserted his agreement with a Chinese commentator in the People’s Daily who had denounced the self-immolators as un-Buddhist. This sentiment in turn lead some to advocate that the Dalai Lama call for a halt to such actions. This, of course, was something that would have put him in an awkward position. Were he to call for such a halt to no effect, it might have implications for his unofficial authority. Were he effective he would provide fodder for Chinese claims that he pulls the strings of protest in Tibet. Another well-respected lama, the Karma-pa, did in November 2011 publicly call for an end to self-immolations, but they continued. He has not reiterated that appeal. After resisting appeals that she call for an end to self-immolation, stating that such calls would not alleviate the causes of self-immolation, the influential writer Tsering Woeser, while continuing to maintain respect for those who had committed such actions, also called for a halt to further acts after a widowed mother committed self-immolation on 4 March 2012 leaving behind four orphaned children. Nevertheless, acts of self-immolations have not stopped.
The Chinese writer Wang Lixiong, who has sought to articulate a way for Tibetan protests to move beyond self-immolation, has stated that the self-immolations have indeed been effective: they have galvanized Tibetan sentiments and greatly strengthened the Tibetan sense of unity in the face of rule by China. This reflects a far clearer understanding of the situation than ideas of Tibetan self-immolation as a futile attempt to move bureaucratic hearts in China or as an act of hopeless despair, rooted as they are, in their advocates’ parochial projections. (Of course, it should go without saying that, contrary to what is believed in some circles, Tibet and the Tibet issue do not occupy the thoughts of most people in China.) In the face of wide, positive sympathy and support in Tibet for those who have committed self-immolation, the “un-Buddhist” critique has not gained traction. One anonymous Tibetan blog comment is perhaps more typical of the way self-immolation has come to be viewed inside Tibet; certainly more typical than the projections of other observers might lead one to believe: “Might I ask if we, who scream when we scrape our hands even slightly, would have the guts to sacrifice our lives for the cause of freedom?… Yes, when I think of the heroes and heroines who have committed self-immolation I am ashamed of my inherent weakness, cowardice and uselessness.”
Both Wang Lixiong and Tsering Woeser have called for Tibetans to move beyond self-immolation as a tactic. At the same time, neither has denigrated those who have committed such acts, let alone characterized them as acting contrary to Buddhist principles. But in a milieu effectively bereft of civil-society options for organizing peaceful protest and dissent it has been difficult to conceive of a viable alternate tactic. Self-immolation is a solitary, individual act of protest that can be undertaken in an instant with little chance for the authorities to prevent it, or to shut out the protester’s message. An end to the current wave of self-immolations will likely require an alternative tactic capable of comparable effect or the ceding of adequate space for dissent on the part of the authorities.
1 April 2012
LINKS

For assertions that self-immolation goes against Buddhist tenets or is a waste of life see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/19/china-tibetans-self-immolation?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
For an assertion that self-immolation in Tibet is a futile attempt to awaken official consciences see:
http://lhakardiaries.com/2011/10/19/how-about-some-r-e-s-p-e-c-t/ (Scroll down to the author's comment after the post.)

For the comments on sacrifice and cowardice see:

http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/12/blog-post_29.html

转自唯色博客:http://woeser.middle-way.net/2012/05/elliot-sperling.html

12 条评论:

匿名 说...

每年夏季是国外藏胞回国的高峰期,一般藏胞回国获得中国签证每年都是个难题,但是很多人仍不知道在你把签证申请表交上去后,目前有三道审查过程:

1. 所在国中国大使馆或领事馆的初步审查,有些人可能立刻遭到拒签,说明你可能在使领馆的黑名单上或者你经常出现在他们的像集里.(每个使领馆都有各种抗议活动时的照片收集,有些是他们自己拍照的,有些是通过媒体和网络获得.).
2. 使馆接受了你的申请,将会把你的资料以表格形式电传给国内你要去的目的地的省或自治区统战部,国内统战部门的审查是很重要的,他们掌握很多藏胞的情况,在一些很少的怀疑情况下,可以无理由拒绝你的申请.
3. 当地的统战部然后把你的资料再交给公安或派出所,最后确定你要探视亲友的身份和政治情况.这也是第三道审查.
通过以上三道审查后,当地统战部会通知你所在的使领馆,所以现在藏胞回国签证需要三周左右的时间.
今年从4月1日开始允许藏胞回国探亲,但是有些地方不允许,甘孜地区是因为自焚事件,不准发签证,玉树地区是因为地震后仍未重建好,不准发签证.

维基让赞

Ttibet Story 【藏地故事】 说...

谢谢维基让赞的解密,我准备转发到我的博客,作为藏事揭秘系列,让更多人知道。
可以吗?

匿名 说...

当然可以,我争取加夜班在提供一个资料,如有错别字和不通的句子,请多改正。汉语还不是很过关。
维基让赞

匿名 说...

国务院已批准在西藏自治区拉萨市成立西藏自治区人民政府侨务办公室,编制10人,目前有自治区外办负责组建,已安排人去北京学习。其目的是近两年侨办在涉藏工作的进一步跟进。在过去的一次中央西藏工作会议上,中央领导人(刘延东)提出今后藏胞工作要靠近华侨工作的路线,也就是说藏胞的提法有质疑,今后要以华侨代替。国侨办每年定期组织出国访问团,出访多国,慰问藏胞,每年也邀请藏胞回国参观。藏胞年轻人可通过各地的使领馆申请奖学金,侨办有专门基金,帮助藏胞回国学汉语。

维基让赞

匿名 说...

藏胞回国探亲一般有三种不同的证件﹕
一种是持不同国家的外籍护照,每年有近500人持外国护照回各藏区探亲,只有极少数人回去工作和定居,每年约有6到8人回国学习。对外籍藏胞基本不办理禄卡(永久居留证),除少数有突出表现的爱国藏胞外。如果想长期回去居住,现在唯一一条可行的路子是,个别已退休藏胞在成都买一套住房,有住房可在成都申请到一年的签证,每年要去延期,手续不是很复杂。持国外护照申请探亲签证,普通情况下可申请3个月,回国后允许延期一次,最长再延长3个月。但是从政策上,藏胞允许申请6个月的签证,但因为怕负责任,一般使馆最多给3个月的签证。请注意,如果要经过拉萨,签证上必须有备注,备注上写有﹕持证人可自拉萨或樟木口岸入出境,如有此备注,不需要进藏许可证,不然必须有进藏许可证原件方能进拉萨。

第二种藏胞持有的证件是国外中国使领馆颁发的旅行证。每年有约200人持此证件回国。由于中国政府不承认世界各国给西藏难民颁发的旅行证件,所以,没有入籍的藏胞如果必须回国,就不得不在中国使馆领取旅行证,麻烦是持旅行证的藏胞不能直接从所在国回国,因为你是难民身份,回国等于失去难民身份,因此这些藏胞要进过第三国,再回中国。请注意,旅行证的第一页第二项说明是︰本旅行证的持有人为中华人民共和国公民。唯一的优势是旅行证有效两年,可以在国内居住两年。其实还有一个鲜为人知的优点,如果回家乡,想永久居住,他们没办法赶你出国,赖着不走,拿你没办法,只能让你长期居住,在拉萨有类似的情况发生。

第三种藏胞持有的证件是中国护照,有部分藏胞保留中国国籍,因为这样回国最方便。

匿名 说...

忘了签名。
维基让赞。
完。

Ttibet Story 【藏地故事】 说...

谢谢维基让赞的辛苦整理。我已经把这些内容分成两份 藏事揭秘 发到我的博客里了,修改了一些字句,加上了点评和自己搜集的资料作为补充。欢迎到我的博客访问,有机会也在我的博客上解密,呵呵。

朱瑞 说...

感谢维基让赞在此提供如此重要的信息!请继续!感谢“藏地故事”的转载和整理!与二位握手!

匿名 说...

请问博主,您认识维基让赞吗?他(她)会是哪里的?我好奇,不知提供的信息是真是假,谁能确认它的可信度?

朱瑞 说...

我也好奇,请楼上这位留言者仔细对照事实,琢磨琢麿,凡是维基让赞的留言,有没有哪条是假的?

匿名 说...

是小道消息或道听途说的吧,我反正半信半疑。应该提出一定的出处,不是吗?

朱瑞 说...

楼上这位,既然你拿不出证据说明维基让赞提供的信息是假的,还要在这里散布“半信半疑”,且诡异地追问“出处”,你很像是职业造谣的五毛狗,或者熊猫之类。从这一角度,更加证明了维基让赞的可靠性。向维基让赞致敬!