2015年1月1日 星期四

《詩性正義:文學想像與公共生活》Martha Nussbaum's Poetic Justice

Martha Nussbaum's Poetic Justice

Hard Times
by Charles Dickens as a example for the "educating" function of fictions or novels.

這是"法律與文學:領域的力作。
這本書的中文翻譯錯誤,還是相當多 (圓規翻譯成天平)。有的是抄上海譯文本的問題,某些關鍵字的討論,參見頁末處。

诗性正义——文学想象与公共生活

作  者: (美)努斯鮑姆 著, 丁曉東 
  • 出版時間: 2010-1-1
  • 字  數: 154000
  • 版  次: 1
  • 頁  數: 182
  • 印刷時間: 2010-1-1

編輯推薦

及時而緊迫……努斯鮑姆女士將小說的觀點作為司法與公共政策的範例,這是烏托邦式的理想,讓人振奮和鼓舞。
  ——莫里斯·迪克斯坦(Morris Dickstein),《紐約時報書評》
對於文學和人文教育對一個國家公共生活的重要性,沒有人作出比這更好的辯護了。瑪莎·努斯鮑姆的新書應該成為每個國會成員的必讀物。
  ——斯坦利·費什(StanleyFish),《專業正確——文學研究與政治變遷》
努斯鮑姆精彩地辯論道,通過帶著同情心去關注那些不同於我們的生命,小說擴展了我們的想像能力,讓我們能夠更好地作出公共生活所需的判斷……努斯鮑姆的論題……應該在屋頂上高聲呼喊——就像惠特曼的《我自己的歌》。
  ——《科克斯書評》
努斯鮑姆引人入勝地辯論道,那種所謂的理性心智已經使我們完全忽視了人這一動物的顯而易見的一面——我們的情感。
  ——勞爾·尼諾(Raud Nino),《新城市》
努斯鮑姆是當代深刻的思想家之一……我們並不知道閱讀小說是否真的會讓人們變得更為仁慈,[但是]這是迄今為止發表過的最強有力的爭論。
  ——凱斯·奧特利(Keith Oatley),多倫多,安大略《環球郵報》

 內容簡介

《詩性正義:文學想像與公共生活》中,美國最傑出的哲學家之一考察了文學想像如何作為公正的公共話語和民主社會的必需組成部分。在一個理性效用科學佔據主流話語的社會中,小說還能起到什麼樣的作用?情感還能扮演什麼樣的角色?想像力是否能夠促進更加正義的公共話語,進而引導更加正義的公共 決策?瑪莎·努斯鮑姆以優美而犀利的文字回答了這些問題,將這些看似不相關的問題緊緊地聯繫在一起。努斯鮑姆表明:文學,尤其是小說,能夠培育人們想像他 者與去除偏見的能力,培育人們同情他人與公正判斷的能力。正是這些暢想與同情的能力,最終將鍛造一種充滿人性的公共判斷的新標準,一種我們這個時代亟需的 詩性正義。
作者簡介:瑪莎·努斯鮑姆(Martha C.Nussbaum),芝加哥大學法學院、神學院和哲學系合聘的弗倫德法律與倫理學傑出貢獻教授,古典與政治科學系副研究員。主要著作《善的脆弱 性》(The Fragilty of Goodness)《愛的知識》(Love's Knowledge)《欲望的治 療》(The Therapy of Desire)《培育人性》(Cultivating Humanity)《思想的劇 變》(Upheavalsofflhought)《逃避人性》(Hiding from Humanity)《正義前 沿》(Frontiers of Justice)《良心自由》(Liberty of Conscience)。

 目錄

致謝
前言
第一章 文學想像
第二章 暢想
第三章 理性情感
第四章 詩人作為裁判

索引

*** HC

Poetic Justice: Briton Quits Post, Saying She Helped Taint a Rival
By JOHN F. BURNS
Ruth Padel resigned after she acknowledged helping publicize charges that her rival for Oxford University’s chair in poetry had sexually harassed a former student.
簡介poetic justice:惡有惡報?自業自得?詩的公正?

緣起:颱風天,無意中讀到:

'Did you get the bikes back?'
' Well, Pat, we have one bike here, but somebody stole the other from the culprits. I guess you could call that poetic justice.'
「你們找到腳踏車嗎?」
「嗯,珮德,有一輛在我們這裡,
可是另一輛已給人從疑犯那兒偷走了。我想,這可以說是惡有惡報吧。」
《我的春天投資》(My Investment in Spring by Patricia Sullivan)載《讀者文摘 1986年五月號 英漢對照 》pp.146-52

《讀者文摘》的翻譯除了不願意將複數的「腳踏車」和「疑犯」翻譯出來(這篇恰巧這會讓讀者迷惑,因為之前的「腳踏車」後來「命運不同」…….),通常極可信的。所以將poetic justice 翻譯成「惡有惡報」應該不會大錯。

不過,用poetic justice 查一下中文網站,除大陸一談電影片名解釋它為「Poetic justice-即美德受褒揚,惡行被懲罰。用來加重語氣或反諷。 ...」之外,台灣的都很玄,很有詩意:
---《新新聞》一篇「政論」
「因此,發現以及面對過去歷史的創痛,乃是民主轉型的必要。而在報告書完成之後,透過總統在公開的場合中,向所有人民做陳述,政治上的負責便透過政府的道歉來完成。因此,「真相及和解委員會」的目的,在於透過呈現歷史真實,提供我們瞭解過去的錯誤,給予受難者歷史上應有的評價,而繼任政權也可以透過挖掘過去的錯誤犯行,以及追求適時的調查過程,替獨裁政權壓制的過去,與民主轉型潛在的未來,提供一個積極的橋樑,刻劃出民主的前景與未來,這是一種詩意正義(poetic justice)的形式。」(陳俊宏----面對懲罰與寬恕的兩難時 追求真相才是解套的途徑 
http://www.new7.com.tw/weekly/old/722/722-052.html

---台灣某大學「宗教與死亡」課程資料
「本書還預設了無目的性的歷史目的論,主張解決「大共業生死」
困境的最佳出路,是回歸到人的本原,亦即回歸到自身族群集其歷史文化的宗教、
道德及審美的心靈去真實面對「詩性懲罰」(poetic justice)。」
---文建會一篇探討(柒、面對兩種營造取向之迷失)
... 亦即以違逆自然方式來營造社區;則既使有民主程序,仍將不足以成就真實的社
區總體營造。這就面臨了詩性的審判(poetic justice)[7],繼而在詩性法庭中
聽任社區居民集體的野蠻復歸,社區本身即成為歷史懲罰的對象 ... [7] 參考維柯關於「詩性審判」之論述。
******
《英漢大詞典》的解釋為:「詩的公正,詩的報應(指通常在詩歌、戲劇和小說等中表現的善有善報、惡有惡報的思想)」
--
Webster 1913 Dictionary無此辭條。
--
1) poetic justice. ...The rewarding of virtue and the punishment of vice, often in an especially appropriate or ironic manner....The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

--(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

poetic justice noun [U]
when something happens to a person that seems particularly fair and deserved, usually because of the bad things that person has done:
例子:
What poetic justice that Brady has to go to court to plead to be allowed to die, just like his innocent victims pleaded to be allowed to live.

--- 《The New Oxford American Dictionary
The fact of experiencing a fitting or deserved retribution for one's action:
The noise was deafening and it was poetic justice when the amplifiers stalled just before the start.

-- 如果我們懂得佛教的「業」之意思,那麼日文的「自業自得」就很容易了解,所以我喜歡他們在「催眠英文」中的解釋和練習:

■今日のイディオム 「自業自得」■
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was ( ) justice that the bomber blew himself up with a bomb
intended to kill others.

「爆弾犯人が殺人を企んだ爆弾で自ら爆死したのは、自業自得だ。
---------------------------------------------------------------
どのような正義を自業自得と言うのでしょうか。
現実の正義というよりむしろ。。。。

■解答■
正解はpoetic(詩人の、詩的な)。

poetic justice(詩的な正義)で、「自業自得」「勧善懲悪」というような意味になります。

英英辞典では、「悪いことが誰かにたいして起きて、それが当然の報いだと
思われるような状況」と説明されています。
まさしく日本語でいうところの「自業自得」ということですね。
現実では必ずしも悪が罰せられるとは限らないからこそ、「詩的な正義」と
いうことなのでしょうか。

日常会話で「(彼がそんな目にあったのは)自業自得だ。」というときには、
He deserved it.  (それを受けるに値する)とか
He asked for it.  (彼自身がそれを求めた)というフレーズで、
「自業自得だ!」を表現しているようです。

poetic justiceの方も表現力アップのためにぜひ覚えておいてください。

---------------------------------------------------------------
It was (poetic) justice that the bomber blew himself up with a bomb
intended to kill others.
「爆弾犯人が殺人を企んだ爆弾で自ら爆死したのは、自業自得だ。

*****文學辭典關於「詩學正義」(poetic justice)?
根據Oxford Concise Dictionary of LITERARY TERMS
The term,"Poetic Justice," is coined by Thomas Rymer in his Tragedies of the Last Age Consider'd(1678) 它原來的意思是這種 「詩的公正」,通常在詩歌、戲劇和小說等中比較可能發生,在現實中不容易有這樣表現分明的善有善報、惡有惡報的思想。即,「詩劇」的報應云云…….

所以這樣說大體可行:
Poetic justice-即美德受褒揚,惡行被懲罰。用來加重語氣或反諷。





這是 http://www.edgewaysbooks.com/9th/Poetic_Justice.pdf 的 HTML 檔。
G o o g l e 在網路漫遊時會自動將檔案轉換成 HTML 網頁。
 Page 1 WORDS IN EDGEWAYS - 9 Martha Nussbaum on Hard Times or What you see is what you are All page references are to. Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Beacon Press, Boston, 1995.
 Martha Nussbaum epitomizes many of the elements of the academic world that are most discomforting and alienating. Her academic success story is what most young, ambitious North American graduate students are taught to model themselves upon: the extremely successful, self-marketing, academic entrepreneur who has triumphed by embracing multiculturalism and interdisciplinarity, advocating social reform, and delivering her gospel to conferences and universities around the globe.

Her successful self-marketing has earned her the reputation as the “Academic Action Figure,” a phrase used only half-jokingly. My question is, what does it all amount to? She certainly isn’t content to be any mere library- or study-bound philosopher-critic. Alongside her purely academic activities she also undertakes “more technical philosophical projects” (xviii).

She wants to make a difference and to give practical economics—the kind concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number— a human face. For instance, during 1986 to 1993, when she was a consultant to the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) in Helsinki, she, along with the economist Amartya Sen, “used Hard Times”, as she says, “to develop criticisms of standard economic paradigms of quality of life assessment, which seemed to us reductive and lacking in human complexity, and to illustrate the types of information such assessments would need to include in order to be fully rational, offering good guidance of both a predictive and normative type” (vxi).

 Poetic Justice—making its starting point the insight that the novel (and literature generally) “invites criticism and completion from philosophical theories” (45)—continues this work: What I now wish to claim is that a novel like Hard Times is a paradigm of such assessment. Presenting the life of a population with a rich variety of qualitative distinctions and complex individual descriptions of functioning and impediments to functioning, using a general notion of human need and human functioning in a highly concrete context, it provides the sort of information required to assess quality of life and involves the reader in the task of Page 2 WORDS IN EDGEWAYS - 9 making the assessment. (52)

 Encapsulated in such a remark is the secret of academic success: marrying boldness and originality of conception—Hard Times, or some novel like it, is a paradigm of non-standard quality of life assessment—with modesty of manner. She not only isn’t asserting what she’s saying; she isn’t even claiming it; she just wishes to claim it, that’s all. (Have a look at her photograph on the Chicago Law School website, and tell me you could deny her.) Dickens, she has discovered, has done in Hard Times just what she herself wants to do in Poetic Justice: “construct a paradigm of a style of ethical reasoning that is context-specific without being relativistic” (8). Throughout her book she repeatedly says that her “antagonist throughout will be, not sophisticated philosophical forms of utilitarianism … but cruder forms of economic utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis” (3)—which, coincidentally, is just what, in her book, Dickens’s antagonist throughout his book is and is not too. Early on she alerts the reader to what the two books share: The reader should be aware from the beginning that my criticism (like the novel’s) is directed toward a particular conception of economic science, not toward the idea of economic science itself, and certainly not toward the idea that abstract theories of a scientific sort can be crucial to the good conduct of public life. (19) Hard Times suggests a subtle internal critique of certain species of utilitarianism, not its complete repudiation. The suggestion is that what is finest in the theory has not been well served by the theory in its full elaboration (especially, though not only, in contemporary economics); that a different a fuller vision of persons is necessary to do justice to the deepest insights of Bethamism itself. (33)

Therefore: it should not displace the workings of economic science, which can do many things that the imaginations of individuals, without such formal models, cannot do, giving us, among other things, a practical sense of how certain goals that the imagination may present to us – less unemployment, lower prices, in general a better quality of life – might be accomplished. (12) So there you have, behind the modesty, the breathtaking scope and ambition of Poetic Justice (this really is a book the aspiring academic should study): to do nothing less than effect a Page 3 WORDS IN EDGEWAYS - 9 reconciliation between the two great opposing principles of nineteenth century life and thought, as manifested in their most plainly representative (and, therefore, seemingly most mutually hostile) embodiments, the authors of Hard Times and of The Principles of Morals and Legislation! And to do so by describing the one in the language of the other! And (here’s the clincher—the clincher, I mean, for modesty in search of success) where is that reconciliation to be found, concretely? Where else but in a book that simultaneously uses the novel to develop criticisms of philosophical theory, and supplies the philosophical theory that criticizes and completes the sense made by the novel, a book aptly named Poetic Justice? (By whose means chalk and cheese are made interchangeable—though not, alas, by analogy with the water that was turned into wine.) And what—as we might vulgarly put it—is the pay-off, critically speaking, for this enterprise? Well, it is that Dickens, in some very important respects, thinks just like Martha Nussbaum—or, at least, that there is nothing in his book that’s out of reach of her style. (If it’s good enough for the World Institute for Development Economics Research, how, for fact’s sake, could it not be good enough for Dickens?) He, like her, has some damaging criticisms to make of standard economic theory but then he too stops short “at the price of jettisoning moral and political theory” altogether (45). What both writers favour is “alternative conceptions” of economic theory (33). It is as true of his book as of hers that “political and economic treatises of an abstract and mathematical sort would be perfectly consistent with its purpose” (44). His book, like hers, “makes a contribution to economic science” by suggesting that “a more complicated theory of the person might deliver better predictions” (47). “Sissy Jupe’s Economics Lesson” is, for instance, one key passage where Dickens tries to make room for more sophisticated approaches than those of the unreformed utilitarians. Sissy’s answers there show up the “crude measure” of the utilitarian-informed questions she’s asked and, in doing so, show Dickens advocating the need for a “more sophisticated approach” to measuring “the quality of life in a nation” (50). Then the characters of the novel generally illustrate the economic theme. Bitzer exemplifies unreformed utilitarian economics; Harthouse represents “explanatory/predictive” “rational-choice models” and uses Louisa to test the truth (or truth-value) of, “certain actions are chosen, certain results will follow” (14, 15); Bounderby is the embodiment of “aggregation” in pooling the data from the workers’ lives without regarding their individuality (14); Tom demonstrates the meaning of “maximizing” by becoming a thief and stealing as large an amount of money as possible (14); Mrs. Sparsit is “exogenous” in assuming Louisa’s preferences can be taken as given (14). And then, where the two books are not simply alike, they are complementary. Where the one “invites criticism and completion from philosophical theories” (45); the other supplies them; that is, where Dickens goes wrong, Nussbaum puts him right: his “hostility to formal mathematical modeling prevented him from seeing that Page 4 WORDS IN EDGEWAYS - 9 problems for which he sought a solution in private charity might in fact be susceptible of a public institutional solution” (11). Nussbaum could hardly think reading literature more important than she does. She thinks it essential to our living: by exercising our literary imagination, we improve our capacity to think and act as responsible citizens, and become more fully human. And how do we know whether the books we read are “literary” ones or not? “to the extent that they promote identification and sympathy in the reader, they resemble literary works” (5); “literary works typically invite their readers to put themselves in the place of people of many different kinds and to take on their experiences” (5); the literary imagination is all “identification and sympathy” (7, 30); what counts is the “sympathetic identification” (73) literature promotes. Unfortunately it’s not Charles Dickens she sympathetically identifies with in Hard Times but Thomas Gradgrind, whose change from an unreformed to a half-reformed utilitarian embodies the very process her own reformation of utilitarian economics means to imitate. He is “an interesting character” because of “his failure to be the sort of person his utilitarian theory represents” (30); “he is not like his own theoretical constructs … he is qualitatively distinct and separate in a way not recognized in his theory’s vision of persons … he is motivated by love, commitment, and plain decency in ways that do not find expression in his theory of human action…. So this man has a soul” (31). Change the personal pronouns and the gender references, and here you have simultaneously Nussbaum’s idealized self-portrait and her idealized reformation of utilitarian economic modelling. She too is a loving human being distinct and separate from her utilitarian arguments, not a utility container, not a crude practitioner of unfeeling utilitarian programmes. She wants to find a way to transform her utilitarian economics reform project into something motivated by love and commitment. Hard Times isn’t ant- utilitarian, after all. It’s utilitarianism with a human face—and not just any face either, Martha’s And her sympathy for Gradgrind, the utilitarian who has lost his confidence in utilitariansm is matched by her antipathy to Bitzer, economic man free of any doubt that in maximizing his utility function he is doing just what he ought. The one is what she would be (and amazingly seems to think Dickens is too), the other what she wouldn’t. Bitzer is “chillingly weird and not quite human” (30) and, because of “his incapacity for any sympathy or commitment that extend beyond a use of others to serve his own ends”, a “monster,” (30). Well, yes but in transforming and assimilating Hard Times to her own project—to reconcile Dickens with Bentham—isn’t she using the former to serve her own ends? Isn’t she also, in her own way, a “monstrous product of the utilitarian system”, her thought informed by it, her language shaped by it? How much of the novel is just invisible to her? The circus and everything it represents. Everything that has to do with love, marriage, family relations. The style! But for her sentimental identification with Gradgrind, what she says of Bitzer—he’s “just weird; we cannot identify with him or wonder about him, for we sense that all within is empty. A novel Page 5 WORDS IN EDGEWAYS - 9 peopled entirely by Bitzer would be a kind of science fiction” (30)— would be no less true of herself.

Reading Poetic Justice is a strange experience. In it Hard Times is transformed into something entirely new and completely antipathetic to itself, an image of Nussbaum and her own “more technical projects”. Alfred Applegate

----
Key word :fancy 有必要翻譯成"暢想"嗎?在"文學術語",fancy(感知力)和imagination(想像力)類似,早期同義,19世紀初英國柯立芝等再進而將後者說成更有能力的心理作用.....。
參考日文詞典如下,不過它基本上與"事實"對立的"非事實":

Paul Schlicke considers the contrast between fact and fancy in Hard Times, exploring how Dickens uses the excitement of the circus to challenge the doctrines of 19th-century philosophers and political economists. - See more at: http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/fact-versus-fancy-in-hard-times#sthash.Kel08jIC.dpuf

The Readerly Text

Barthes argues that most texts are readerly texts. Such texts are associated with classic texts that are presented in a familiar, linear, traditional manner, adhering to the status quo in style and content. Meaning is fixed and pre-determined so that the reader is a site merely to receive information. These texts attempt, through the use of standard representations and dominant signifying practices, to hide any elements that would open up the text to multiple meaning. Readerly texts support the commercialized values of the literary establishment and uphold the view of texts as disposable commodities.

Fancy
[名](複 -cies)
1 [U]空想,想像;(詩人・画家などの)空想[想像]力.
2 (空想から生ずる)夢,夢想,心象;根拠のない考え;幻想(⇒FANTASY[類語]
She had happy fancies of becoming a movie star.
彼女は映画スターになりたいという楽しい夢をいだいていた
It may be my fancy, but ... [=It is perhaps just my fancy that ...]
気のせいかもしれませんが….
3 気まぐれ,思いつき
passing fancy
ちょっとした気まぐれ
follow one's fancies
気分に従う,気の向くままにする.
4 ((英))(気まぐれな)好み,愛好
catch [hittakestrikesuitticklethe fancy of a person [=a person's fancy]
人の気にいる
do whatever strikes one's fancy
(自分の)好きなようにする
have a great fancy for [=take a great fancy to [for]] traveling
旅行がとても好きだ[になる].
5 [U]審美[鑑識]眼;判断力;趣味
man of fine fancy
趣味の高尚な人.
6 (動物の)変種作り,品種改良のための飼育.
7 ((the ~))((集合的))(スポーツ・動物などの)愛好家連.
━━[形](-ci・er, -ci・est)(▼ふつう比較級・最上級は用いない)((1, 2を除いて限定))

沒有留言:

網誌封存