Editor's note: As if in the blink of an eye, it has been nearly seven months since the death of Umberto Eco, an Italian writer, scholar, and important European public intellectual. On February 19 this year, 84-year-old Eco died of cancer. In Europe and the United States, there is a hidden concept among intellectuals: if you don't read Umberto Eco, you cannot be considered a knowledgeable and interesting person. Presumably, Chinese readers are no strangers to this European writer who is rich in knowledge and knowledge. As early as the 1980s, his "The Name of the Rose" has been translated into Chinese. The subsequent "Foucault's Pendulum", "Baudolino" and "Minerva Matchbox" also allow Chinese readers to experience the profound and complex narrative and writing style of this "academic" writer.
Shanghai Translation Publishing House will publish many of Eco's recent works this year, including the collection of essays "Making Enemies". "Making Enemies" contains 15 articles, spanning ancient and modern times, integrating the writer's multiple identities into one book: we can see not only the philosophical reflections and literary thoughts of the scholar Eco, but also the public intellectual Eco's use of the past to satirize the present and criticize the current shortcomings. There are clues of the creations of the novelist Eco, and there is also the old naughty Eco who writes about the taste of life with his wonderful ideas. The following article is excerpted from the essay "Making Enemies", the opening work of this collection of essays. Eco quoted from many sources, aiming to explore the origin and process of "creating and defining enemies" in human history. From blacks, gypsies, and Jews, to prostitutes, witches, lepers, and today's European immigrants, how do we define "difference" as "threat" and then define "people who are different from us" as "enemies"? Is morality capable of creating or sustaining a world without enemies? How do we deal with our differences—enemies ourselves, or try to understand them?
"Making Enemies"
Text | Umberto Eco
Why do we need enemies?
The enemy is the reference against which we measure our own worth
A few years ago, I met a taxi driver in New York with a very awkward name. He said he was Pakistani. Then he asked me where I was from and I said Italy. He then asked how many people there were in Italy and was shocked to learn that the population was so small and that the official language was not English.
Finally, he asked me who the enemy of Italy was. I asked "What?" and he patiently explained to me that he wanted to know which ethnic group Italy had been at war with over the past few hundred years, whether it was for territorial disputes, ethnic hatred, or border aggression or other reasons. I said we are not at war with any ethnic group. his patienceSon, continued to explain to me that he wanted to know who our old enemies were, that is, those peoples who had killed each other with the Italians. I reiterate again that we have no such enemy. The most recent war took place more than half a century ago, and even in that war, the initial enemy and the final enemy were not the same people.
He was not satisfied with my answer. How can a nation have no enemies? When we got off the bus, I tipped him an extra two dollars for the insensitive pacifism of this nation. As soon as I got out of the car, I suddenly realized that I should have answered him this way: The Italians are not without enemies, but they are not foreign enemies. They simply cannot agree on "who is the enemy" because they are always fighting internally: Pisa fought against Leghorn, the Guelphs fought against the Ghibellines, the North fought against the South, the fascists fought against the anti-fascist guerrillas, the mafia fought against the state, the government fought against the courts - it was a pity that the fall of the two Prodi governments had not happened that year, otherwise I could have explained to him what it means to lose a war with the "fire support" of allies.
But if I think about it carefully, I do think that our country's greatest misfortune is that we have never had a real enemy in the past sixty years. The unification of Italy benefited from the presence of the Austrians, or Giovanni Berchet (1783—1851), an Italian Romantic poet and literary theorist. Said that it benefited from the "rude and disgusting Germans"; while Mussolini used the words of Gabriel D'Annunzio, the "incomplete victory" during World War I, saying that although Italy was one of the victorious countries, it did not gain any actual benefits. The humiliation of the Battles of Dogari and Adua and the unfair verdicts imposed on Italy by Jewish-style plutonic democracy succeeded in arousing the national sentiment of revenge. Let’s take a look at what happened in the United States when the great enemy the Soviet Union disintegrated and the “evil empire” gradually disappeared: Their savior identity was on the verge of collapse, which was relieved until the appearance of bin Laden; the latter never forgot the benefits he received from the United States during the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, and finally extended a hand of mercy to the United States at this critical moment, providing the Bush administration with an excellent opportunity to establish new enemies, thereby enhancing national cohesion and consolidating its own power..
Having an enemy is not only important for establishing one's identity, but it also means obtaining a comparison against which to measure our value system and to highlight one's own value by confronting it. Therefore, when such an opponent does not exist, an artificial enemy needs to be created. We might as well look at the "generous flexibility" shown by the skinheads of Verona in this matter: Any other group that does not belong to this group is regarded as their enemy. Therefore, the topic we discuss tonight is not simply "identifying enemies that are threatening to oneself", but the process of creating and defining enemies.
Who is the enemy?
People who are different from us, difference is the sign of the enemy
In "Four Speeches Against Catiline", Cicero did not need to describe the enemy's appearance because he already had evidence of Catiline's conspiracy to rebel. However, in his second speech, he deliberately described the faces of Catiline's allies, insinuating their despicable images onto the core figure Catiline. A group of guys who spent the night at a banquet, got entangled with shameless women, indulged in wine pools and meat forests, wore garlands on their heads, smeared themselves with makeup, and were tormented by women until they were weak. They also uttered wild words about massacring loyal citizens and burning the city to the ground... They were right in front of everyone: My hair is not messy, my beard is neatly trimmed, I wear long-sleeved clothes that reach to my feet, and I wear a veil instead of a robe... These "young people" who appear so refined and elegant not only learned to sing, dance, and fall in love, but also learned to stab knives and poison. Cicero had the same moral and ethical views as Augustine, and they both despised pagans. Because they, unlike Christians, often hang out in circuses, theaters and amphitheatres, and celebrate Dionysian festivals. It follows that the enemies are people different from us, who follow customs different from ours.
Foreigners are a typical alien species. As early as the ancient Roman relief sculptures, barbarians always appeared with unshaven beards and flat noses. As we all know, even“The word "barbarian" itself alludes to the language and thinking deficiencies of foreigners. The Italian word for barbarian is "barbaro". The word is an onomatopoeia, derived from balbutire(meaning stuttering, stuttering) Therefore, the word was originally used to describe those who speak slurred words.
However, since ancient times, in most cases, these aliens have been regarded as enemies by us, not because they pose a direct threat, but because some of their representatives show some kind of threat - although they do not directly threaten us. This means that it is not the threat that highlights the difference; on the contrary, it is the difference that becomes the sign of the threat.
Black people are alien to all races because of their unique skin color. In the first edition of the "Encyclopedia Britannica" in the United States in 1798, we can read the following description of the word "Negro": The skin color of different black people also has subtle differences in shades; but their facial features are without exception significantly different from other races. Their cheeks are round, their cheekbones are high, their foreheads are slightly protruding, their noses are short, wide and flat, their lips are thick, and their ears are small. Their overall appearance is ugly and strange. Black women have sagging bellies, thick hips, and a saddle-shaped figure. This unfortunate race is born with the following bad habits: Lazy, disloyal, vindictive, cruel, shameless, cunning, deceitful, obscene, divisive, despicable, dissolute. These despicable qualities make them ignore the laws of nature, and at the same time they do not feel the condemnation of conscience at all. They don't know what sympathy is, and they are terrible examples of human corruption and depravity. Black people are ugly. The enemy must be ugly, because only good people are worthy of beauty (the “goodness of mind and body” perspective). One of the fundamental characteristics of beauty was what was called in the Middle Ages integratisLatin, complete, complete. Quality (that is, having all the characteristics that represent the average quality of a certain race in an all-round way. Therefore, for humans, missing limbs, missing eyes, lower than average height, or "non-human" skin color, these conditions all fall into the category of ugliness). Thus, for characters like the Cyclops Polyphemus and the dwarf Charm, we immediately think of them as archetypes of our enemies.
Obviously, those classified as ugly because of their low social status also include gangsters, recidivists and prostitutes. But speaking of prostitutes, we enter another topic, one about gender hostility or sexualDon't be discriminatory. Since ancient times, men have dominated society and written history, or dominated society and written history at the same time, so women have always been portrayed as "disasters." We must not be fooled by the angelic appearance of women. On the contrary, precisely because women in most literary works appear in gentle and beautiful images, the world of essays that the public is more interested in has been demonizing the image of women, whether in ancient times, the Middle Ages or modern times. From this passage, it is not difficult for us to see the origin of punishment for those who spread the epidemic. But the persecution described by Ginzberg also unconsciously reflects another point: lepers were identified with Jews and Saracens. Historians from many eras have made similar accounts, saying that Jews were accomplices of lepers, so many Jews were burned to death together with lepers. "At that time, the lawless people executed lepers on the spot. Without notifying the priest or the local governor at all, they locked them in the house and burned them all together with the livestock and furniture."
Is it human nature to make enemies?
War is inevitable, we can only step up efforts to make enemies
Making enemies also includes the process of making enemies "voluntarily admit". Many dramas and novels show us images similar to the "ugly duckling": Because they are despised by their peers, they are also accustomed to thinking that they are as ugly as their peers say. Shakespeare's "Richard III" is a typical example.
From this point of view, enemies are indispensable. Even as civilization continues to advance, the image of the enemy cannot be eliminated. Making enemies is a need of human nature, and even gentle and peace-loving people are not exempt from this habit. In this case, it is nothing more than transferring the image of the enemy from certain people to certain natural forces or social factors that are threatening and must be defeated. For example: Capitalist exploitation, environmental pollution, hunger in third world countries, etc. If the above-mentioned enemy-making behaviors are "not unreasonable", then as Brecht said, hatred and hatred of injusticeRevenge will also turn around and become justice.
Since making enemies is an innate psychological need, does morality seem weak in the face of this need? I believe that the role of morality is not to whitewash a world without enemies, but to try to understand the other party and put yourself in the other person’s perspective. In Aeschylus’s writings, we can’t see any hatred for the Persians because he empathizes with the tragic experience of the Persians. Caesar showed great respect for the Gauls, and at most he made them cry bitterly at each surrender. Tacitus praised the Germans very much, saying that they were physically strong, but his criticism of them was limited to their lack of hygiene and being afraid of hardship because they could not endure the heat and thirst.
Trying to understand the other person means breaking the mold, not denying or eliminating the differences between the parties.
However, we are all realists. Only a poet, a saint, or a traitor can understand the enemy in this way. Our deepest instincts are another matter entirely. In 1968, the United States published a work with an unknown author: "Secret Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desire of Peace" (someone even recorded it under Galbraith's name). Obviously, this is an anti-war article, or an article full of pessimism that believes war is inevitable. To launch a war, you must establish an enemy to fight against. Therefore, the inevitability of war directly leads to the inevitability of identifying and establishing enemies. Therefore, this article analyzes it with an extremely serious attitude and believes that the entire American society's shift towards a peaceful attitude will have disastrous consequences, because only war is the foundation for the harmonious development of human society. The consumption caused by war is a valve that regulates the healthy development of society: Only war can consume society's reserve materials. War is a flywheel; with war, a group will have a "national" consciousness; without the experience of dealing with war, a government cannot even establish its own legal status; only war can maintain the balance between different classes and properly handle and utilize anti-social factors. Peace will lead to social instability and an increase in juvenile crime rates; war can channelize various turbulent social forces in the most correct way and give them a certain "status." The military is the last hope for the poor and marginalized in society; only a war system that controls the power of life and death can force society to pay a bloody price in exchange for the development of other industries that do not rely on war, such as the automobile industry. From an ecological point of view, war is a valve to deal with excess life forms; if we say that until the nineteenth century, warMost of the people who died were valuable social groups (soldiers), but the old, weak, sick and disabled were left behind. Today's war system can solve this problem, because we can carry out targeted bombings at places such as retirement centers. Compared with religious rituals of killing young children, ascetic behavior, forced mutilation, and excessive use of the death penalty, war can control population growth more effectively... In the final analysis, although war is full of conflicts and confrontations, it is the most "humane" art of development.
In this case, we should persist and intensify our behavior of making enemies. George Orwell provided us with an exemplary model in "1984"... However, even without the madness described in "1984", we can still realize the human need to make enemies. We are witnessing how afraid we are of new immigrant groups. We extended the characteristics of some non-mainstream foreign individuals to the entire nation and established Romanian immigrants as enemies of Italy. Immigrants became ideal scapegoats for a society undergoing racial change and confused about its identity.
Of course, the most pessimistic view appears in Sartre's "Confinement". On the one hand, it is because of the existence of aliens that we can recognize ourselves. Based on this, we have coexistence and tolerance. But on the other hand, we hope that this alien will be so weird that we can't stand it. Therefore, we put him in the position of the enemy and build our hell on earth. When Sartre put three dead people who had never known each other in the same hotel room, one of them discovered the terrible truth:
You will see how simple this is. It couldn't be simpler. There's no corporal punishment here, right? But we are in hell. No one else will come, no one will come. We have to be together forever... There is one less person here, one less executioner... They are hiring fewer people. That's it...each one of us is the executioner of two others.
This article is excerpted from the book "Making Enemies" (written by Umberto Eco, translated by Li Jingjing, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, September 2016 edition). It is published with the authorization of the publishing house. It is abridged from the original text and the subtitles were added by the editor.
