CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that.
乔姆斯基：我不同意。
FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice.
福柯：而在一个无阶级社会里人们是否还使用公正概念，我对此无把握。
CHOMSKY: Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis--if you press me too hard I'll be in trouble, because I can't sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a "real" notion of justice is grounded.
乔姆斯基：对此我完全不能同意您的看法。我认为在人类的基本性质中有一个绝对基础，公正概念便形成于人类基本性质中。如果您坚持您的观点，我将处于困境，因我不能清晰地阐明我的观点。
I think it's too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don't think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real.
我有些仓促地将现行的司法制度归类于阶级压迫的工具，我想此事不那么简单。这些司法制度还表现出了其他形式的压迫，同时它也表现出对真正的公正、名誉、友情、仁慈和同情概念的探讨。我想这也是显而易见的。
And I think that in any future society, which will, of course, never be the perfect society, we'll have such concepts again, which we hope, will come closer to incorporating a defence of fundamental human needs, including such needs as those for solidarity and sympathy and whatever, but will probably still reflect in some manner the inequities and the elements of oppression of the existing society.
任何未来的社会肯定不是十全十美的社会。我想上述这些概念仍会存在并能更好地保卫人类的基本需要，如团结的需要和同情的需要，可能仍会有目前社会中存在的不公正和压迫因素。
However, I think what you're describing only holds for a very different kind of situation.
然而我认为您所说的则不同。
For example, let's take a case of national conflict. Here are two societies, each trying to destroy the other. No question of justice arises. The only question that arises is which side are you on ? Are you going to defend your own society and destroy the other ?
以民族冲突为例，两拨人互相摧毁，这时公正概念没有任何意义。摆在人们面前的唯一问题是：你站在哪一方？你要保卫自己一方面摧毁对方吗？
I mean, in a certain sense, abstracting away from a lot of historical problems, that's what faced the soldiers who were massacring each other in the trenches in the First World War. They were fighting for nothing. They were fighting for the right to destroy each other. And in that kind of circumstance no questions of justice arise.
把某些历史问题撇在一边，从某种意义上看，这就是一战时在战壕里厮杀的战士们所面临的问题。他们白白地厮杀一场，而只是由于有权厮杀而已。在类似的情况下，公正不起任何作用。
And of course there were rational people, most of them in jail, like Karl Liebknecht, for example, who pointed that out and were in jail because they did so, or Bertrand Russell, to take another example on the other side. There were people who understood that there was no point to that mutual massacre in terms of any sort of justice and that they ought to just call it off.
当然，有一些有理性的人指出了这点，因而被投入监狱。比如卡尔·李卜克内西，还有贝特朗·罗素，他们被看作是敌方人员。他们清楚任何形式的公正都不允许这样的杀戮，他们有义务昭示天下。
Now those people were regarded as madmen or lunatics and criminals or whatever, but of course they were the only sane people around.
于是他们被看作是疯子、精神病人、罪人。不容置疑，他们是这个时代唯一的智力健全的人。
And in such a circumstance, the kind that you describe, where there is no question of justice, just the question of who's going to win a struggle to the death, then I think the proper human reaction is : call it off, don't win either way, try to stop it-and of course if you say that, you'll immediately be thrown in jail or killed or something of that sort, the fate of a lot of rational people.
在您所说的情况下，唯一的问题就是知道谁会在这场生死战斗中胜利。我想正常人的反应应是：揭露战争，拒绝所有的胜利，竭尽全力制止战争，冒着被投入监狱甚至杀头的的危险去制止战争，这是许多有理智的人的命运。
But I don't think that's the typical situation in human affairs, and I don't think that's the situation in the case of class-conflict or social revolution. There I think that one can and must give an argument, if you can't give an argument you should extract yourself from the struggle. Give an argument that the social revolution that you're trying to achieve is in the ends of justice, is in the ends of realising fundamental human needs, not merely in the ends of putting some other group into power, because they want it.
在人类事务中，我并不认为这是典型情况，不认为这适合于阶级斗争或社会革命的情况。在后两种情况下，如果不能评判战斗，就必须放弃战斗。人们应表明所进行的社会战斗最终通向公正，是为满足人类的基本需求，而非将权力交给一群人仅仅因为他们想得到它。
FOUCAULT: Well, do I have time to answer ?
福柯：好，我还有时间反驳吗？
ELDERS: Yes.
埃勒德：是的。
FOUCAULT: How much ? Because. . .
福柯：多少时间？因为……
ELDERS: Two minutes. [Foucault laughs.]
埃勒德：两分钟。
FOUCAULT: But I would say that that is unjust. [Everybody laughs.]
福柯：这不公正……
CHOMSKY: Absolutely, yes.
乔姆斯基：是的，绝对不公正。
FOUCAULT: No, but I don't want to answer in so little time. I would simply say this, that finally this problem of human nature, when put simply in theoretical terms, hasn't led to an argument between us; ultimately we understand each other very well on these theoretical problems.
不，我是说我不可能用这么短的时间说清楚，我简单谈一下。人性这个问题在理论方面我并未有分歧，可以说在理论问题上我们是相互沟通的。
On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human nature and political problems, then differences arose between us. And contrary to what you think, you can't prevent me from believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class system; and one can't, however regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should-and shall in principle--overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can't find the historical justification. That's the point. ..
从另一方面看，当我们讨论人性问题、政治问题时，我们之间的差异就显露出来了。同您所想的相反，您无法阻挡我认为人性、公正、实现人类本质的这些概念是生成于我们文明内部、在我们的知识类型和我们哲学形式之中的概念，因而是我们阶级体制的一部分。我们不能使这些概念在描写和评判一场战斗中发生作用，这是十分遗憾的。这场战斗可能是，原则上应该是，动摇我们社会的基础。这里有一个我还未能找到历史证明的推论是……
CHOMSKY: It's clear.
乔姆斯基：显而易见。
ELDERS: Mr. Foucault, if you were obliged to describe our actual society in pathological terms, which of its kinds of madness would most impress you ?
埃勒德：福柯先生，如果您必需用病理学词汇来描写我们现在的社会，哪些是给您印象最深刻的疯狂形式？
FOUCAULT: In our contemporary society?
福柯：在我们现代社会里？
ELDERS: Yes.
埃勒德：是的。
FOUCAULT: If I were to say with which malady contemporary society is most afflicted ?
福柯：您是要我说出我们的社会最主要的病症？
ELDERS: Yes.
埃勒德：对。
FOUCAULT: The definition of disease and of the insane, and the classification of the insane has been made in such a way as to exclude from our society a certain number of people. If our society characterised itself as insane, it would exclude itself. It pretends to do so for reasons of internal reform. Nobody is more conservative than those people who tell you that the modern world is afflicted by nervous anxiety or schizophrenia. It is in fact a cunning way of excluding certain people or certain patterns of behaviour.
福柯：人们都是以把一部分人排挤出我们社会方式来给疾病、疯狂下定义的，对疯子进行分类。如果我们的社会被确定为是疯狂的，那么它也会被自我排挤出去，以进行内部改革为由可以做到这一点。说当代社会患了惊恐症或精神分裂症的人比任何人都保守。事实上，排挤出一些人或一些行为的意图是一种诡诈的伎俩。
So I don't think that one can, except as a metaphor or a game, validly say that our society is schizophrenic or paranoid, unless one gives these words a non-psychiatric meaning. But if you were to push me to an extreme, I would say that our society has been afflicted by a disease, a very curious, a very paradoxical disease, for which we haven't yet found a name; and this mental disease has a very curious symptom, which is that the symptom itself brought the mental disease into being. There you have it.
除非使用隐喻或诙谐手法，我不认为我们的社会患了精神病学意义上的精神分裂症或偏执狂。如果您非要逼我，我可能会说我们的社会确实得了一种怪病，非常反常的病，直到目前还未为它找到恰当的名称。这种精神方面的疾病有一种奇怪的症状，它能够引发精神病，就这样。
ELDERS: Great. Well, I think we can immediately start the discussion.
埃勒德：妙极了。那么，我想我们可以接着讨论了。
QUESTION: Mr. Chomsky, I would like to ask you one question. In your discussion you used the term "proletariat"; what do you mean by "proletariat" in a highly developed technological society ? I think this is a Marxist notion, which doesn't represent the exact sociological state of affairs.
一与会者：乔姆斯基先生，我向您提一个问题。在讨论中您使用了“无产者”这个词，在一个科技高度发达的社会里，这意味着什么？我觉得这是马克思的一个概念，它表现不出现实社会学的情况。
CHOMSKY: Yes, I think you are right, and that is one of the reasons why I kept hedging on that issue and saying I'm very sceptical about the whole idea, because I think the notion of a proletariat, if we want to use it, has to be given a new interpretation fitting to our present social conditions. Really, I'd even like to drop the word, since it's so loaded with specific historical connotations, and think instead of the people who do the productive work of the society, manual and intellectual work. I think those people should be in a position to organise the conditions of their work, and to determine the ends of their work and the uses to which it's put; and, because of my concept of human nature, I really think of that as partially including everyone. Because I think that any human being who is not physically or mentally deformed-and here I again must disagree with Monsieur Foucault and express my belief that the concept of mental illness probably does have an absolute character, to some extent at least-is not only capable of, but is insistent upon doing productive, creative work, if given the opportunity to do so.
乔姆斯基：您的意见非常正确，这也是我尽力避开这一主题的原因之一。我说我有许多疑惑，因为我认为我们应给予无产阶级这一概念一个新的、适合我们目前社会条件的解释。我愿意放弃这个词，它已不堪特定历史内涵的重负，而想到那些在体力方面或脑力方面完成社会生产工作的人。他们应可以安排它们的工作条件、决定和实现自己的目标。按照我的人性概念，我认为这部分地包括了所有的人。我认为任何一位体质与精神都未被扭曲的人不仅能够并且也希望在有机会的情况下从事创造性工作。与福柯先生相反，我确信精神病症可能有绝对的特征，至少在某种程度上是这样。
I've never seen a child who didn't want to build something out of blocks, or learn something new, or try the next task. And the only reason why adults aren't like that is, I suppose, that they have been sent to school and other oppressive institutions, which have driven that out of them.
我从未见到一个孩子拒绝用积木搭建什么玩艺儿、学习新鲜东西或完成下一个任务。只有成人不是这样，因为他们已在学校和其他令人压抑的地方度过了一段时光，这种愿望早已消失殆尽。
Now if that's the case, then the proletariat, or whatever you want to call it, can really be universal, that is, it can be all those human beings who are impelled by what I believe to be the fundamental human need to be yourself, which means to be creative, to be exploratory, to be inquisitive. . .
在这种情况下，无产阶级，你们愿意怎么叫就怎么叫吧，可以直正具有普遍性，即代表了所有具备人类基本需求的人。这些需求就是：实现自我，进行创作和发现，表达自己……
QUESTION: May I interrupt ?
与会者：我能打断您吗？
CHOMSKY: . . to do useful things, you know.
乔姆斯基：……做有益事情的愿望。这大家都清楚。
QUESTION: If you use such a category, which has another meaning in Marxist ...
与会者：如果您使用这个范畴，那么在马克思思想里还有另一种意思……
CHOMSKY: That's why I say maybe we ought to drop the concept.
乔姆斯基：……正因为如此，我说过我们可能应放弃这一概念。
QUESTION: Wouldn't you do better to use another term ? In this situation I would like to ask another question : which groups, do you think, will make the revolution?
与会者：难道您不能选用一个别的词吗？在这种情况下，我想再提一个问题：根据您的看法，什么人会闹革命？
CHOMSKY: Yes, that's a different question.
乔姆斯基：这是不同的问题。
QUESTION: It's an irony of history that at this moment young intellectuals, coming from the middle and upper classes, call themselves proletarians and say we must join the proletarians. But I don't see any class-conscious proletarians. And that's the great dilemma.
与会者：目前，一些出身于中产阶级和大资产阶级的年轻知识分子声称自己是无产者，他们号召我们加入无产阶级，这是历史的讽刺。而在真正的无产阶级中似乎并没有阶级意识，真是莫大的窘困。
CHOMSKY: Okay. Now I think you're asking a concrete and specific question, and a very reasonable one.
乔姆斯基：好，我认为您的问题很实际、很特殊并且有它的道理。
It is not true in our given society that all people are doing useful, productive work, or self-satisfying work-obviously that's very far from true - or that, if they were to do the kind of work they're doing under conditions of freedom, it would thereby become productive and satisfying.
在我们的社会里，并不是所有的人都从事着有益的、生产性的工作，或对自己来说有兴趣的工作，现实相差甚远。换句话说，如果他们在自由的条件下从事这些工作，这些工作就会成为生产性的和令人满意的。
Rather there are a very large number of people who are involved in other kinds of work. For example, the people who are involved in the management of exploitation, or the people who are involved in the creation of artificial consumption, or the people who are involved in the creation of mechanisms of destruction and oppression, or the people who are simply not given any place in a stagnating industrial economy. Lots of people are excluded from the possibility of productive labour.
大多数人更确切地说都投入到其他活动中去了，诸如经营开发、制造人为消费或搞破坏、搞压迫；要不然就在停滞不前的工业经济中找不到任何位置。许多人被剥夺了拥有一份生产性工作的可能性。
And I think that the revolution, if you like, should be in the name of all human beings; but it will have to be conducted by certain categories of human beings, and those will be, I think, the human beings who really are involved in the productive work of society. Now what this is will differ, depending upon the society. In our society it includes, I think, intellectual workers; it includes a spectrum of people that runs from manual labourers to skilled workers, to engineers, to scientists, to a very large class of professionals, to many people in the so-called service occupations, which really do constitute the overwhelming mass of the population, at least in the United States, and I suppose probably here too, and will become the mass of the population in the future.
我认为，如果你们同意的话，革命应以全人类的名义进行。但它的领导者应是一些在社会中真正从事生产性工作的一类人。生产性工作的内容随条件变化而不同。在我们的社会里，我想包括了脑力劳动者，包括了从体力劳动者到熟练工人，到工程师，到研究者，到一个宽广的自由职业者阶级和许多第三产业的职员，他们构成了人民群众，至少在美国是这样。在我们这儿也如此，我想。
And so I think that the student-revolutionaries, if you like, have a point, a partial point : that is to say, it's a very important thing in a modern advanced industrial society how the trained intelligentsia identifies itself. It's very important to ask whether they are going to identify themselves as social managers, whether they are going to be technocrats, or servants of either the state or private power, or, alternatively, whether they are going to identify themselves as part of the work force, who happen to be doing intellectual labour.
因此我想革命的大学生们并没有错：知识界同一的方式在现代工业社会里非常重要。（注：identify在这里怎么都不会是“同一”的意思吧）必需搞清他们是否像公司经理那样同一，他们是否有意成为专家出身的高级官员、国家公务员或私营部门的职员，或者他们是否要同生产力量同一，用脑力参加生产。
If the latter, then they can and should play a decent role in a progressive social revolution. If the former, then they're part of the class of oppressors.
在后一种情况下，他们可以在进步的社会革命中担当正确的角色。在前种情况下，他们将属于压迫阶级。
QUESTION: Thank you.
与会者：谢谢。
ELDERS: Yes, go on please.
埃勒德：请继续讲下去。
QUESTION: I was struck, Mr. Chomsky, by what you said about the intellectual necessity of creating new models of society. One of the problems we have in doing this with student groups in Utrecht is that we are looking for consistency of values. One of the values you more or less mentioned is the necessity of decentralisation of power. People on the spot should participate in decision-making.
另一与会者：乔姆斯基先生，您关于建立社会新模式的智力需要的说法使我深受震动。我们在同乌德勒支大学学生共同工作中要解决的问题之一便是价值的协调。您刚才提到，价值之一是必要的权力分散。从事实际工作的人应当有决定权。
That's the value of decentralisation and participation : but on the other hand we're living in a society that makes it more and more necessary--or seems to make it more and more necessary-that decisions are made on a world-wide scale. And in order to have, for example, a more equal distribution of welfare, etc., it might be necessary to have more centralisation. These problems should be solved on a higher level. Well, that's one of the inconsistencies we found in creating your models of society, and we should like to hear some of your ideas on it.
这就是地方分权与参与的价值。但从另一方面来说，我们生活在一个越来越需要以世界角度出发作出决定的社会。为了较公正地进行社会援助，应该需要比较大的集中，应该在一个相当高的层次上解决这些问题。这是建立新的社会模式中的不协调点之一。我们想知道您对此问题的看法。
I've one small additional question--or rather a remark to make to you. That is : how can you, with your very courageous attitude towards the war in Vietnam, survive in an institution like MIT, which is known here as one of the great war contractors and intellectual makers of this war?
我还有一个小问题，或者说是一个小意见。我认为您对越南战争的态度非常大胆，但您如何能生活在像麻省理工学院这样的机构里？麻省理工学院在此地被看作是战争制造者之一，是这场冲突的智力决策者。
CHOMSKY: Well, let me answer the second question first, hoping that I don't forget the first one. Oh, no, I'll try the first question first; and then remind me if I forget the second.
乔姆斯基：我先来回答第二个问题，希望别忘记第一个问题。不，我还是先回答第一个问题吧，如果我忘记了另一个问题，请你们提醒我。
In general, I am in favour of decentralisation. I wouldn't want to make it an absolute principle, but the reason I would be in favour of it, even though there certainly is, I think, a wide margin of speculation here, is because I would imagine that in general a system of centralised power will operate very efficiently in the interest of the most powerful elements within it.
总的说来我是支持地方分权的，但我不想把这作为绝对原则。尽管中央集权体制有相当大的思辨余地，我还是认为这种体制的有效运行有利于其内部最强大的组成部分。
Now a system of decentralised power and free association will of course face the problem, the specific problem that you mention, of inequity-one region is richer than the other, etc. But my own guess is that we're safer in trusting to what I hope are the fundamental human emotions of sympathy and the search for justice, which may arise within a system of free association.
当然地方分权和自由组合体制会面临您提到的不平等问题，比如一个地区更富庶等等。我较有把握地信赖我希望的人类基本情感——团结和追求公正，它们可以在自由组合的体制中发扬光大。
I think we're safer in hoping for progress on the basis of those human instincts than on the basis of the institutions of centralised power, which, I believe, will almost inevitably act in the interest of their most powerful components.
我想，企盼建立在人类本性基础上的进步要比企盼建立在中央集权机构上的进步要有把握。这些机构不可避免地按照自己最强大的组成部分的利益行事。
Now that's a little abstract and too general, and I wouldn't want to claim that it's a rule for all occasions, but I think it's a principle that's effective in a lot of occasions.
这要说有些抽象和空泛，我不想说这是放之四海而皆准的规律，但我认为在多数情况下这是一条灵验的原则。
So, for example, I think that a democratic socialist libertarian United States would be more likely to give substantial aid to East Pakistani refugees than a system of centralised power which is basically operating in the interest of multinational corporations. And, you know, I think the same is true in a lot of other cases. But it seems to me that that principle, at least, deserves some thought.
举一个例子。我认为民主的、社会主义的和绝对自由主义的美国在为东巴基斯坦难民提供救援方面要比一个中央集权体制国家更快捷有效，后者主要依照多民族利益行事。大家知道，在许多情况下的确如此。我觉得这是一个值得深思的问题。
As to the idea, which was perhaps lurking in your question anyway-it's an idea that's often expressed-that there is some technical imperative, some property of advanced technological society that requires centralised power and decision-making-and a lot of people say that, from Robert McNamara on down-as far as I can see it's perfect nonsense, I've never seen any argument in favour of it.
您的问题反映出这样一种看法，即技术的发展和先进的科技社会的性质都需要一个中央集权和专制的政权。这是个常被提及的问题，很多人加以认可，首当其冲的是罗伯特·麦克纳马拉。我认为这种想法是十分荒谬的，我从未找到对此观点有利的论据。
It seems to me that modern technology, like the technology of data-processing, or communication and so on, has precisely the opposite implications. It implies that relevant information and relevant understanding can be brought to everyone quickly. It doesn't have to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of managers who control all knowledge, all information and all decision-making. So technology, I think, can be liberating, it has the property of being possibly liberating; it's converted, like everything else, like the system of justice, into an instrument of oppression because of the fact that power is badly distributed. I don't think there is anything in modern technology or modern technological society that leads away from decentralisation of power, quite the contrary.
我觉得现代科技，比如对资料的处理或通讯，的确具有不利的蕴涵。（注：根据句子意思，应是“相反的”而非“不利的”）它意味着对信息和理解的追求可以迅速被所有人掌握，无需先集中到少数经理手中，即控制所有知识、所有信息和掌握所有决定权的人手中。同其他一切事物一样，科技也有解放我们的性质，它也会转变，就像司法制度会变成压迫工具一样，主要是因为权利分配不公。我认为在科技里或在现代科技社会里，什么都不会使我们远离地方分权，而恰恰相反。
About the second point, there are two aspects to that : one is the question how MIT tolerates me, and the other question is how I tolerate MIT. [Laughter.]
关于第二个问题，我是从两个方面来看的：麻省理工学院如何能容忍我及我如何能容忍它？
Well, as to how MIT tolerates me, here again, I think, one shouldn't be overly schematic. It's true that MIT is a major institution of war-research. But it's also true that it embodies very important libertarian values, which are, I think, quite deeply embedded in American society, fortunately for the world. They're not deeply embedded enough to save the Vietnamese, but they are deeply embedded enough to prevent far worse disasters.
我想不能过分简单地看这个问题。的确，麻省理工学院在军事研究方面扮演了举足轻重的角色，但它同时也具有基本的绝对自由主义特点。幸好这些特点已牢固地植根于美国社会，虽然还远未到能拯救越南人民的程度，但已可以避免更大的灾祸。
And here, I think, one has to qualify a bit. There is imperial terror and aggression, there is exploitation, there is racism, lots of things like that. But there is also a real concern, coexisting with it, for individual rights of a sort which, for example, are embodied in the Bill of Rights, which is by no means simply an expression of class oppression. It is also an expression of the necessity to defend the individual against state power.
在这里我们应有所保留。帝国主义的侵略和恐怖依然存在，就像种族主义和剥削到处存在一样。它们引起人们对个人权利的真正关注，比如用绝对没有阶级压迫内容的《人权法案》来捍卫个人权利，它同时也表达了保护个人不受国家暴力侵害的需要。
Now these things coexist. It's not that simple, it's not just all bad or all good. And it's the particular balance in which they coexist that makes an institute that produces weapons of war be willing to tolerate, in fact, in many ways even encourage, a person who is involved in civil disobedience against the war.
这一切都是共存的，此事既不简单也非泾渭分明。由于共同生存的事物之间的特殊平衡，一个生产战争武器的机构能够允许甚至鼓励一个人投入到反战的民间反抗中去。
Now as to how I tolerate MIT, that raises another question. There are people who argue, and I have never understood the logic of this, that a radical ought to dissociate himself from oppressive institutions. The logic of that argument is that Karl Marx shouldn't have studied in the British Museum which, if anything, was the symbol of the most vicious imperialism in the world, the place where all the treasures an empire had gathered from the rape of the colonies, were brought together.
至于我怎么能忍受麻省理工学院，这是另一个问题。有些人认为一个左派人士应远离压迫机构。我搞不清这是根据什么逻辑得出此种观点。根据这种观点，卡尔·马克思不应在大英博物馆研究，因为这里至少是世界最残酷的帝国主义的象征，帝国把它从各殖民地掠夺来的宝物收藏于此。
But I think Karl Marx was quite right in studying in the British Museum. He was right in using the resources and in fact the liberal values of the civilisation that he was trying to overcome, against it. And I think the same applies in this case.
我认为卡尔·马克思有充分理由在此研究，利用这里的资料创造文明的自由价值。我的情况亦如此。
QUESTION: But aren't you afraid that your presence at MIT gives them a clean conscience ?
一与会者：您不担心您的加盟会使麻省理工学院感到良心无愧吗？
CHOMSKY: I don't see how, really. I mean, I think my presence at MIT serves marginally to help, I don't know how much, to increase student activism against a lot of the things that MIT as an institution does. At least I hope that's what it does.
乔姆斯基：我看不出会是这样。我加入到麻省理工学院从侧面有助于反对麻省理工学院作为干涉机构的活动。当然我不知道能做到何种程度，至少我是这样希望的。
ELDERS: Is there another question ?
QUESTION: I would like to get back to the question of centralisation. You said that technology does not contradict decentralisation. But the problem is, can technology criticise itself, its influences, and so forth ? Don't you think that it might be necessary to have a central organisation that could criticise the influence of technology on the whole universe ? And I don't see how that could be incorporated in a small technological institution.
一与会者：我想回到中央集权问题上。您刚才说科技并不与地方分权背道而驰，但是科技有能力自我评判它的影响力吗？难道您不认为需要设立一个中央组织在全世界范围内评判科技的影响吗？我不清楚在一个很小的科技机构里如何进行这项工作？
CHOMSKY: Well, I have nothing against the interaction of federated free associations; and in that sense centralisation, interaction, communication, argument, debate, can take place, and so on and so forth, and criticism, if you like. What I am talking about is the centralisation of power.
乔姆斯基：好吧！我一点也不反对自由联邦组合中的相互作用。在这个意义上，中央集权、相互作用、通讯、讨论、辩论都可以找到它们的位置，如果您愿意的话，评判也如此。但我说的是权力的分散。
QUESTION: But of course power is needed, for instance to forbid some technological institutions from doing work that will only benefit the corporation.
与会者：当然，权力是必需的，比如为了禁止科技机构完成一项仅对某一行业有利的工作。
CHOMSKY: Yeah, but what I'm arguing is this : if we have the choice between trusting in centralised power to make the right decision in that matter, or trusting in free associations of libertarian communities to make that decision, I would rather trust the latter. And the reason is that I think that they can serve to maximise decent human instincts, whereas a system of centralised power will tend in a general way to maximise one of the worst of human instincts, namely the instinct of rapaciousness, of destructiveness, of accumulating power to oneself and destroying others. It's a kind of instinct which does arise and functions in certain historical circumstances, and I think we want to create the kind of society where it is likely to be repressed and replaced by other and more healthy instincts.
乔姆斯基：对。我的观点是这样的：在采取正确决策时，如果必需在一个集中的权力或一个绝对自由社团间的自由组合中作选择的话，我情愿选择第二个。因为我想它可以最大限度地发挥人类善良的本性。而一个中央集权体制一般来说却最大限度地发展人类最恶劣的本性——贪得无厌破坏，目的是为自己牟取权力而消灭别人。这种本性是在一定的历史条件下出现和运作的。我想我们希望建立一个没有这种恶性的社会。在这样的社会里，人类恶性被健康本性取而代之。
QUESTION: I hope you are right.
与会者：我希望您有道理。
ELDERS: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think this must be the end of the debate. Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Foucault, I thank you very much for your far-reaching discussion over the philosophical and theoretical, as well as the political questions of the debate, both for myself and also on behalf of the audience, here and at home.
埃勒德：夫人们，先生们，我想今天的讨论到此结束。乔姆斯基先生，福柯先生，我以个人名义及全体与会者的名义为这次颇有深度的哲学、理论及政治讨论会向你们二人表示诚挚的谢意。
网友评论