中国大好き

政治與戲劇

Vaclav Havel/文  董恆秀/譯

 

譯者註：曾擔任宇宙塑膠人主唱的Paul Wilson，在他一篇追悼哈維爾發表于紐約時報書評的長文裡提到，2003年哈維爾下台時，許多捷克人民並不感念他，不過讓人驚訝的是，當哈維爾於2011年12月18日過世時，大街小巷即刻擠滿哀悼的人潮，人數之多是自絲絨革命以來最盛大的。他認為哈維爾偉大之處在於，他讓所有與他接觸過的一般民眾感受到親切的情感。他深切瞭解到舊體制的壯大，是以剝奪人民的尊嚴、以上千種的小手段制度性地羞辱他們，使人民成為無權力者。也因此當他居高位時，他對其他人、對先前的對手皆待之以禮，如此幫助恢復那被剝奪的尊嚴與權力。而透過對人道、人權的身體力行與不斷寫作闡明，他一步步療傷捷克社會。哈維爾的名言之一是，我們做得越多，就越能做，而我們越能做，就做得更多。Wilson說，這可以說哈維爾態度一個很好的總結。而這一篇發表於1997年的〈政治與戲劇〉(“PoliticsandTheatre”byVaclavHavel)，由劇作家總統哈維爾來寫是再恰當不過了。

 

I recently read an article entitled “Politics as Theatre,” a critique of all that I have tried to do in politics. It argued that in politics, there is no place for a realm as superfluous as theatre. To be sure, in the early months of my presidency, some of my ideas demonstrated more theatrical flair than political foresight. But the author erred in one fundamental issue: he misunderstood both the meaning of theatre and a crucial dimension of politics.

我最近讀到一篇名為〈政治做為戲劇〉的文章，批評所有我在政治裡嘗試做的事。該文說，在政治裡沒有給像戲劇這種多餘領域的空間。可以確定的是，在我擔任總統一開始的幾個月，我的一些想法所展現出的戲劇光芒甚於政治前瞻。不過該文作者犯了一個根本性的錯誤：他誤解了戲劇的意義與政治一個關鍵要素。

 

Aristotle once wrote that every drama or tragedy requires a beginning, a middle, and an end, with antecedent following precedent. The world, experienced as a structured environment, includes Aristotle’s inherent dramatic dimension, and theatre is an expression of our desire for a concise way of grasping this essential element. A play of no more than two hours always presents, or is meant to present, a picture of the world and an attempt to say something about it.

亞里斯多德曾寫到，每齣戲劇或悲劇皆要具備一個開始、中間與結束，有前因與先例。這個世界，這個被經驗為一種結構性環境的世界，涵蓋了亞里斯多德所主張的內鍵戲劇要素，而戲劇則是我們想以精簡的方式把捉此一基本要素的一種表達。一齣不到兩小時的戲總在呈現，或有意呈現，一個世界的圖像，或是對其解說的一種嘗試。

 

One definition of politics holds that it is the conduct, concern for, and administration of public affairs. Obviously, concern for public affairs means concern for humanity and the world, which requires a recognition of humanity’s self-awareness in the world. I do not see how a politician can achieve this without recognizing drama as an inherent aspect of the world as seen by human beings, and thus as a fundamental tool of human communication.

政治的一個定義是，政治是處理、關心、管理公眾事物。很明顯地，關心公眾事物，意味著關心人類和世界，這樣的關心需要一種人類自我察覺在世界上的認知。我看不出一個政治人如何達到這點，而能不認知到人之視戲劇做為世界的一種基本要素，也因此做為人類溝通的一種工具。

 

Politics without a beginning, a middle, and an end, without exposition and catharsis, without gradation and suggestiveness, without the transcendence that develops a real drama, with real people, into a testimony about the world is, in my opinion, a neutered, one-legged, toothless politics.

政治若沒有一個開始、中間與結束，沒有呈展與淨化，沒有層次與暗示，沒有以真實的人將一種真實的戲劇發展成對世界的一種見證的超越性，在我看來，是一種軟弱無力、殘缺不全、無所作為的政治。

 

I am not always successful in practicing what I preach, but I work for a politics that knows that it matters what comes first and what follows, a politics that acknowledges that all things have a proper sequence and order. Above all, it is a politics that realizes that citizens – without theorizing, as I am now – know perfectly well whether political actions have direction, structure, a logic in time and space, or whether they lack these qualities and are merely haphazard responses to circumstances.

我並不總是做到我所宣揚的，不過我所從事的政治瞭解事物孰先孰後的重要，承認所有事物皆有一適當的順序和理路。而最重要的，這樣一種政治理解到所有公民不需要像我這樣搞理論，就非常清楚地知道政治行動是否有方向、結構、在時空裡有邏輯，或者是否它缺乏這些素質，而僅是對環境的變化亂槍打鳥式的反應。

 

On a limited stage, within limited time, and with limited figures or props, theatre says something about the world, about history, about human existence. It explores the world in order to influence it. Theatre is always both symbol and abbreviation. In theatre, the wealth and complexity of being are compressed into a simplified code that attempts to extract what is most essential from the substance of the universe and to convey this to its audience. This, in fact, is what thinking creatures do every day. Theatre is simply one of the many ways of expressing the human ability to generalize and comprehend the invisible order of things.

在一個限定的舞台、限定的時間、限定的人物或道具，戲劇訴說世界、歷史、人類的存在。它探索世界以便加以影響。戲劇不變的是象徵與簡化。在戲劇裡，存在的繁複被壓縮成一個簡化的符碼，以便能粹取宇宙實質的精華，並將此精華傳達給觀眾。而這事實上是思考動物每天做的事。戲劇是人類對事物看不見的理路普遍化與理解的能力諸多表現中的一個方式。

 

Theatre, too, possesses a special ability to allude to and convey multiple meanings. Action shown on stage always radiates a broader message, without necessarily being expressed in words. It is a fragment of life organized in a way meant to say something about life as a whole. The collective nature of a theatrical experience is no less important: theatre always presupposes the presence of a community – actors and audience – who experience it together.

戲劇也擁有一種暗示與傳達多樣意義的特殊能力。在舞台上展示的行動總能放射出更廣泛的訊息，而無需用文字表達。戲劇是一種生活的片段被組織成一種指向整體生命的方式。戲劇經驗的集體性質也是同等重要：戲劇總是以一個社群的在場為前提──演員與觀眾一同經驗著。

 

All these qualities have counterparts in politics. A friend once said that politics is “the sum of all things concentrated.” It encompasses law, economics, philosophy, and psychology. Inevitably, politics is theatre as well – theatre as a system of symbols addressing us as a whole, as individuals, and as members of a community, and testifying through the specific event in which it is embodied, to the great happenings of life and the world, enhancing our imagination and sensibilities. I cannot imagine a successful politics without an awareness of these things.

所有這些性質也具現於政治。一位友人曾說政治是「所有事物的濃縮。」它涵蓋了法學、經濟學、哲學與心理學。不可避免的，政治也是戲劇。戲劇作為一種象徵的體系將我們視為一個整體、個體、社群的成員，透過它所具體呈現的特殊事件為生活與世界的偉大事件作證，提升我們的想像力與感受力。我無法想像成功的政治能夠對這些事物毫無察覺。

 

The symbols that politics employs are by nature theatrical. National anthems, flags, decorations, holidays, do not mean much of themselves, but the meanings that they evoke are instruments of a society’s self-understanding, tools for creating awareness of social identity and continuity. Politics is also charged with symbols in other, less visible respects. When Germany’s President came to Prague, shortly after our Velvet Revolution, on March 15, 1990 (the 51st anniversary of the Nazi occupation of the Czech lands), he did not have to say much, because the fact of his visit on such a day spoke volumes. It was equally auspicious when the French president and British prime minister arrived on an anniversary of the Munich Agreement.

政治所使用的象徵在本質上是戲劇性的。國歌、國旗、國家勳章、國定假日，它們本身並不具多大意義，不過它們所喚起的意義是社會自我瞭解的手段，也是創造社會認同與延續的工具。政治在其他較不醒目的面向也富含象徵。在我們的絲絨革命後不久，德國總統於1990年3月15日到訪布拉格（納粹佔領捷克51週年紀念日），他無需多說什麼，他在這樣的日子到訪的事實本身即深具意義。而法國總統與英國首相在慕尼黑協定的一個週年來訪，也同樣意義深遠。

 

Symbolic political acts resemble theatre. They, too, involve allusion, multiplicity of meaning, and suggestiveness. They, too, portray an abridged reality, making an essential connection without being explicit. And they, too, have a universally accepted ritual framework that stands the test of time.

象徵性的政治行為類似戲劇。它們也牽涉典故、多重意義與暗示。它們也呈現一種簡化的現實，以不明說的方式做一種根本性的銜接。而它們也有一種普遍被接受的儀式架構，經得起時間的考驗。

 

Even doubters cannot deny one aspect of theatricality in politics: the dependence of politics on media. Many politicians would be helpless without coaches to teach them the techniques of performing in front of a camera. All politicians, including those who sneer at theatre as superfluous, something that has no place in politics, unwittingly become actors, dramatists, directors, or entertainers.

甚至持懷疑態度的人也無法否認政治裡一個戲劇面向：政治對媒體的依賴。許多政治人若無人給予指導攝影機前的表演技巧，將會很無助。所有的政治人，包括那些對戲劇嗤之以鼻、視之為多餘、在政治無立足之地的人，不知不覺地都成了演員、劇作家、導演，或藝人。

 

The significant role that a theatrical sensibility plays in politics is two-edged. Those possessing it can arouse society to great deeds and nurture democratic culture, civic courage, and a sense of responsibility. Such people can also mobilize the worst instincts and passions, make masses fanatical, and lead societies into hell. Recall the gigantic Nazi congresses, torchlight processions, the inflammatory speeches by Hitler and Goebbels, and the cult of German mythology. We could hardly find a more monstrous abuse of politics’ theatrical aspect. And today – even in Europe – rulers use theatrical tools to arouse the kind of blind nationalism that leads to war, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, and genocide.

戲劇感受力在政治裡所扮演的重要角色是一刃兩面。那些擁有這種感受力的人能激發出社會偉大行動與培養民主文化、公民的勇氣和責任感。這樣的人也可以動員最壞的本能和激情，使群眾狂熱，把社會帶入地獄。看看過去龐大的納粹造勢大會、火炬遊行、希特勒與戈貝爾的煽動性演說，和德國神話的崇拜。我們很難找到像這樣政治的戲劇面向如此可怕地被濫用。當今世界，甚至在歐洲，統治者使用戲劇工具，以喚起一種盲目的民族主義，導致戰爭、種族清洗、集中營和種族滅絕。

 

So where is the boundary between legitimate respect for national identity and symbols, and the devilish music of pied pipers, dark magicians, and mesmerizers? Where do passionate speeches end and demagogy begin? How can we recognize the point beyond which expression of the need for collective experience and integrating rituals becomes evil manipulation and an assault on human freedom?

那麼正當的國家認同與象徵，跟那些穿花衣服的吹笛手、施妖術的魔術師與群眾迷惑者的惡魔音樂之間的界線在哪裡呢？哪裡是激情演講的結束，煽動的開始？我們如何知道那一點，超越那一點，集體經驗與統合儀式的表達需要就變成邪惡操縱與對人類自由的攻擊？

 

Here is where we see the huge difference between theatre as art and the theatrical dimension of politics. A mad theatrical performance by a group of fanatics is part of cultural pluralism, and, as such, helps to expand the realm of freedom without posing a threat to anyone. A mad performance by a fanatical politician can plunge millions into endless calamity.

這裡我們可以看到戲劇做為藝術與政治的戲劇面向的巨大差異。由一群狂熱份子演出的瘋狂戲劇表演是文化多元主義的一部份，這有助於擴展自由的領域而不會對任何人造成威脅。由一個狂熱政治人演出的瘋狂表演，則會把幾百萬人投入永無止境的災難。

 

So the drama of politics demands not an audience, but a world of players. In a theatre, our consciences are touched, but responsibility ends when the curtain falls. The theatre of politics makes permanent demands on us all, as dramatists, actors, and audience – on our common sense, our moderation, our responsibility, our good taste, and our conscience.

所以政治的戲劇，要求的不是觀眾，而是我們所有演員。在劇院裡，我們的良心被觸動，不過我們的責任也隨劇幕拉下而結束。政治的劇場對所有做為劇作家、演員、觀眾的我們，在常識、節制、責任、好的品味與良心上有著永遠的要求。