評論
打印
The problem runs deep. A host of negative words and expressions in English contain the modifier “black”; they are old, and are probably related to a primeval fear of darkness. Nonetheless the constant equation of “black” with danger or evil can weary black human beings: consider black magic, blackguard, black-hearted, black economy and so forth. Some, such as blackmail, are unavoidable fixtures. But not all: the computer types who are replacing “blacklist” (a list of e-mail addresses that cannot reach you) with “blocklist” are making a small but symbolic effort.
這個問題根深蒂固。英語中存在大量負面的詞匯和表達帶有修飾語“黑色”；這種表達由來已久，很可能與人們對黑暗的原始恐懼有關。盡管如此，“黑色”與危險或邪惡的永恒等式讓黑人們不厭其煩：比如黑魔法、惡棍、黑心、黑色經(jīng)濟等等。在一些固定用法的表達中，“黑色”的使用不可避免，比如敲詐勒索這個詞。但并不是所有的表達都必須固定使用“黑色”，計算機從業(yè)者在使用“黑名單”時用“blocklist”替代“blacklist”（黑名單是指無法聯(lián)系你的一系列郵件地址的清單），這樣的做法微不足道，但意義非凡。
The same tech wizards deploying “blocklist” have proposed new terms for “master” and “slave” in computing (whereby one process or device controls another). This seems justifiable, too. The hunt for “masters” has ranged beyond power relationships, however. Harvard has dropped the name “house masters” for faculty members who live in student accommodation and have a pastoral role. Some property salesmen are ditching “master bedroom” in favour of “main bedroom”. These changes may be inessential, but they are harmless.
提出使用“blocklist”的技術奇才還提出用新術語來替代計算機中的“主”和“從”（“主”和“從”表示一個程序或設備控制另一個程序或設備）。這樣的替代似乎也合情合理。但是，對“主”這一術語的取代已經(jīng)超出了他的權力關系。哈佛大學已經(jīng)取消了“舍監(jiān)”這一稱呼，“舍監(jiān)”指代那些住在學生宿舍并承擔教牧角色的教職人員。一些房地產(chǎn)銷售人員在描述“主臥”時，也棄用了“master bedroom”，轉(zhuǎn)而使用“main bedroom”。這樣的改變也許無關緊要，但卻不會招惹麻煩。
The harm comes only when sensitivity to offence goes so far that it undermines the assumption of good faith to which people are generally entitled. At a meeting of the Linguistic Society of America in 2018, for instance, Itamar Francez of the University of Chicago spoke on a panel about diversity in the discipline. He decried “formalchismo”: older scholars’ dismissal of new perspectives for being expressed without traditional formality. Many in the audience liked his coinage, but Mr Francez soon found himself retracting it: a listener had complained that it “creates a hostile environment in linguistics for Spanish speakers”. More and more academics say they are afraid to discuss controversial issues; that becomes harder still when even those trying to confront racism are vulnerable to a “call-out” over a triviality.
只有在人們對冒犯的界定過于敏感，以至于連公眾普遍認可的善意都無法接受的時候，麻煩就會隨之而來。比如，在2018年舉辦的美國語言學會的一次會議上，芝加哥大學的伊塔瑪·弗朗茲在小組討論中進行發(fā)言，對語言學的學科多樣性進行探討。他譴責“形式主義”，即年長的學者們因為新觀點不符合傳統(tǒng)的表達形式就不屑一顧。許多觀眾喜歡弗朗茲這一新創(chuàng)造的詞匯，但他自己很快就覺得這個詞不能使用，因為一名聽眾抱怨稱，“在語言學上，這個詞會對講西班牙語的人造成不良影響”。越來越多的學者表示，他們害怕討論有爭議的問題；甚至那些反對種族歧視的人都很容易因為微不足道的小事而受到譴責，討論由此變得越發(fā)艱難。
The losers could be those who need frank discussion most: minority students who should be able to decry the real harms they face, in forms large and small. One student at USC wrote on Instagram that the “nei ge” flap “is going to be used to gaslight us when we try to voice our actual grievances”. An evergrowing list of things you cannot say helps no one. Progress requires more open conversation, not less.
那些最需要進行開誠布公討論的人可能最深受其害，也就是那些少數(shù)族裔的學生，他們應該強烈譴責自己遭受的真正傷害，不論傷害程度的深淺。一名南加州大學的學生在Instagram上寫道，“當我們試圖表達我們真正面臨的苦痛時，由‘內(nèi)個’引發(fā)的騷動事件對我們進行了心理操縱，會讓我們噤若寒蟬”。禁言清單越來越長，這無益于任何人。只有廣開言論，而非閉口不言，才能取得進步。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學習交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
