演講MP3+雙語(yǔ)文稿:如何引導(dǎo)持不同意見(jiàn)的人展開(kāi)對(duì)話(huà)

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/10000/10387/tedyp139.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

聽(tīng)力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語(yǔ)文稿，供各位英語(yǔ)愛(ài)好者學(xué)習(xí)使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語(yǔ)文稿:如何引導(dǎo)持不同意見(jiàn)的人展開(kāi)對(duì)話(huà)，希望你會(huì)喜歡！

【演講者及介紹】Eve Pearlman

伊芙·皮爾曼，一位新聞創(chuàng)新者、公共演說(shuō)家、作家和思想領(lǐng)袖。作為一名終身記者，她致力于為社區(qū)服務(wù)和建設(shè)社區(qū)。

【演講主題】如何引導(dǎo)持不同意見(jiàn)的人之間的對(duì)話(huà)

【中英文字幕】

翻譯 psjmz mz 校對(duì) Jin Ge

00:01

So in the run-up to the 2016 election, Iwas, like most of us, watching the rise in discord and vitriol and nastiness inour public spaces. It was this crazy uptick in polarization. It was bothdisheartening and distressing. And so I started thinking, with a fellowjournalist, Jeremy Hay, about how we might practice our craft differently. Howwe might go to the heart of divides, to places of conflict, like journalistsalways have, but then, once there, do something really different. We knew wewanted to take the core tools of our craft -- careful vetting of information,diligent research, curiosity, a commitment to serving the public good -- toserving our democracy -- and do something new. And so we mapped out thisprocess, what we call dialogue journalism, for going to the heart of social andpolitical divides, and then, once there, building journalism-supportedconversations between people on opposite sides of polarizing issues.

在2016年大選的準(zhǔn)備階段，我和大多數(shù)人一樣，看到公眾空間中越來(lái)越多的不和，刻薄和骯臟。這是兩極分化的瘋狂升級(jí)。既令人沮喪又讓人苦惱。于是，我開(kāi)始和一位名叫杰里米·海伊的記者一起思考如何用不同的方式應(yīng)用我們的技巧。如何才能像記者們經(jīng)常做的那樣，涉足分歧的中心，到達(dá)沖突的地方。而一旦到了那里，做一些真正不同的事情。我們知道我們想要用核心技巧——認(rèn)真審查資料，勤奮研究，充滿(mǎn)好奇，對(duì)公共利益的承諾——去服務(wù)我們的民主——去做新的事情。于是我們想出了這個(gè)項(xiàng)目，我們稱(chēng)之為對(duì)話(huà)新聞，去觸及社會(huì)和政治分歧的核心，一旦到了那一步，就可以在對(duì)立的兩派之間建立起由新聞業(yè)支持的對(duì)話(huà)。

01:03

But how actually to do this in a worldthat's so divided, so deeply divided -- when we live in a world in whichcousins and aunts and uncles can't talk to one another, when we often live inseparate and distinct news ecosystems, and when we reflexively and habituallymalign and dismiss those with whom we disagree? But we wanted to try. And soright after the 2016 election, in that time between the election and theinauguration, we partnered with the Alabama Media Group to do something reallydifferent. We brought 25 Trump supporters from Alabama together in conversationwith 25 Clinton supporters from California. And we brought them together in aclosed, moderated Facebook group that we kept open for a month. What we wantedto do was to give them a place to engage with genuine curiosity and openness.And we wanted to support them in building relationships, not just with eachother but with us as journalists. And then we wanted to supply facts andinformation -- facts and information that they could actually receive and processand use to undergird their conversations.

但如何在如此分裂，裂痕如此之深的世界中去做這樣的事？ 當(dāng)我們所處的世界 堂兄弟姐妹和他們的 父母不彼此交談，當(dāng)我們常常生活在隔離 和不同的新聞生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中，并且當(dāng)我們反射性地、習(xí)慣性地詆毀 和排斥那些與我們意見(jiàn)相左的人？ 但我們?nèi)韵胍囋?。于是?016年大選后，在選舉和就職典禮之間那段時(shí)間，我們和阿拉巴馬媒體集團(tuán)合作，做了一些非常不同的事情。我們從阿拉巴馬帶來(lái)了 25位川普的支持者，與來(lái)自加州的25位希拉里·克林頓的支持者進(jìn)行對(duì)話(huà)。我們把他們放到一個(gè)封閉的有管理員的Facebook群組上，觀察了一個(gè)月。我們想要做的是給他們一個(gè)場(chǎng)所，保持真誠(chéng)的好奇和開(kāi)放態(tài)度。并且我們想要幫助他們建立關(guān)系，不僅在他們之間，并且和我們記者之間。然后我們想要提供事實(shí)和信息，讓他們可以節(jié)接受和思考，并可以用來(lái)增強(qiáng)他們的談資。

02:13

And so as a prelude to this conversation,the first step in what we call dialogue journalism, we asked what they thoughtthe other side thought of them. So when we asked the Trump supporters fromAlabama what they thought the Clinton supporters in California thought of them,this is some of what they said. "They think we are religious Biblethumpers." "That we're backwards and hickish, and stupid.""They think that we all have Confederate flags in our yards, that we'reracist and sexist and uneducated." "They think we're barefoot andpregnant, with dirt driveways." "And they think we're all prissybutts and that we walk around in hoop skirts with cotton fields in thebackground."

作為這次對(duì)話(huà)的引子，這個(gè)我們稱(chēng)之為對(duì)話(huà)新聞的第一步，我們?cè)儐?wèn)他們認(rèn)為對(duì)方會(huì)如何看待他們。當(dāng)我們問(wèn)阿拉巴馬的川普支持者加州的希拉里支持者如何看待他們時(shí)，他們是這樣說(shuō)的：“他們認(rèn)為我們是狂熱的宗教信徒?！薄拔覀兪锹浜笥薮赖泥l(xiāng)巴佬?！薄八麄冋J(rèn)為我們的院子里都是南方聯(lián)盟的旗幟，我們是種族主義者，性別歧視者，沒(méi)受過(guò)教育?！薄八麄冇X(jué)得在塵土飛揚(yáng)的馬路上經(jīng)常能看到赤腳和懷孕的人。”“他們認(rèn)為我們都是鄉(xiāng)巴佬，穿著箍裙在棉花田中四處走動(dòng)?！?/p>

02:53

And then we asked that same question of theCalifornians: "What do you think the Alabamians think about you?" Andthey said this: "That we're crazy, liberal Californians." "Thatwe're not patriotic." "We're snobby and we're elitist.""We're godless and we're permissive with our children." "Andthat we're focused on our careers, not our family." "That we'reelitist, pie-in-the-sky intellectuals, rich people, Whole Foods-eating, very outof touch."

然后我們對(duì)加州的人問(wèn)了同樣的問(wèn)題：“你們認(rèn)為阿拉巴馬的人會(huì)怎么看你們？”他們是這么說(shuō)的：“我們是瘋狂的，自由的加州人。”“我們不愛(ài)國(guó)?！薄拔覀儎?shì)利，我們是所謂的精英。”“我們不信神，我們對(duì)孩子放任自由?！薄拔覀冴P(guān)注工作，而不是家庭?！薄拔覀兪蔷⒅髁x者、空想家、有錢(qián)人、全食主義者，非常脫節(jié)?！?/p>

03:19

So by asking questions like this at thestart of every conversation and by identifying and sharing stereotypes, we findthat people -- people on all sides -- begin to see the simplistic and oftenmean-spirited caricatures they carry. And in that -- after that, we can moveinto a process of genuine conversation.

所以通過(guò)在每次對(duì)話(huà)前問(wèn)這樣的問(wèn)題，通過(guò)識(shí)別和分享刻板印象，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)人們——兩邊的人——開(kāi)始看到他們所攜帶的印象往往是簡(jiǎn)單且刻薄的。在這之后，我們開(kāi)始了真正的對(duì)話(huà)。

03:40

So in the two years since that launch --California/Alabama Project -- we've gone on to host dialogues and partnershipswith media organizations across the country. And they've been about some of ourmost contentious issues: guns, immigration, race, education. And what we found,remarkably, is that real dialogue is in fact possible. And that when given achance and structure around doing so, many, not all, but many of our fellow citizensare eager to engage with the other.

在加州/阿拉巴馬項(xiàng)目發(fā)起的兩年后——我們繼續(xù)與全國(guó)各地的媒體組織舉辦對(duì)話(huà)和開(kāi)展合作。他們一直在討論一些最有爭(zhēng)議的話(huà)題：槍支，移民，種族，教育。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，很明顯，真正的對(duì)話(huà)實(shí)際上是可能的。當(dāng)有機(jī)會(huì)按這樣的組織結(jié)構(gòu)去做時(shí)，很多，雖然不是全部，但我們的很多公民非?？释舜嘶?dòng)。

04:12

Too often journalists have sharpeneddivides in the name of drama or readership or in service to our own views. Andtoo often we've gone to each side quoting a partisan voice on one side and apartisan voice on the other with a telling anecdotal lead and a pithy finalquote, all of which readers are keen to mine for bias. But our dialogue-basedprocess has a slower pace and a different center. And our work is guided by theprinciple that dialogue across difference is essential to a functioningdemocracy, and that journalism and journalists have a multifaceted role t記者常常激化分歧，以因?yàn)閼騽』?，迎合讀者口味 或做出一些主觀臆斷更吸引眼球。我們常常站在兩派的立場(chǎng)上，一邊引用一個(gè)黨派的聲音，另一邊引用另一個(gè)黨派的聲音，并加上軼事式的開(kāi)場(chǎng)和精辟的結(jié)束語(yǔ)，所有的讀者都熱衷于挖掘偏見(jiàn)。但是，我們基于對(duì)話(huà)的過(guò)程節(jié)奏較慢，而且主題繁雜。我們的工作是基于這個(gè)原則：直面差異的對(duì)話(huà)對(duì)民主很關(guān)鍵，新聞業(yè)和記者可以發(fā)揮多方面的作用進(jìn)行支持。o play in supporting that.

04:51

So how do we work? At every stage, we're astransparent as possible about our methods and our motives. At every stage, wetake time to answer people's questions -- explain why we're doing what we'redoing. We tell people that it's not a trap: no one's there to tell you you're stupid,no one's there to tell you your experience doesn't matter. And we always askfor a really different sort of behavior, a repatterning away from the reflexivename-calling, so entrenched in our discourse that most of us, on all sides,don't even notice it anymore.

那么我們究竟是如何運(yùn)作的？在每個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，我們都盡可能地公開(kāi)我們的方法和我們的動(dòng)機(jī)。在每個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，我們都抽時(shí)間回答人們的問(wèn)題——解釋我們?yōu)槭裁醋?，在做什么。我們告訴人們，不要擔(dān)心：這里沒(méi)人會(huì)說(shuō)你很蠢，這里沒(méi)人會(huì)說(shuō)你的經(jīng)歷不重要。我們總是要求一種完全不同的行為，避開(kāi)習(xí)慣性的反身謾罵，這我們的語(yǔ)境中是如此根深蒂固，以至于所有陣營(yíng)中的大多數(shù)人甚至都沒(méi)有注意到它。

05:25

So people often come into our conversationsa bit angrily. They say things like, "How can you believe X?" and"How can you read Y?" and "Can you believe that thishappened?" But generally, in this miracle that delights us every time,people begin to introduce themselves. And they begin to explain who they areand where they come from, and they begin to ask questions of one another. Andslowly, over time, people circle back again and again to difficult topics, eachtime with a little more empathy, a little more nuance, a little more curiosity.And our journalists and moderators work really hard to support this becauseit's not a debate, it's not a battle, it's not a Sunday morning talk show. It'snot the flinging of talking points. It's not the stacking of memes and gifs orarticles with headlines that prove a point. And it's not about scoringpolitical victories with question traps.

人們參與我們的對(duì)話(huà)時(shí)往往都有些氣憤。他們往往帶著這樣的口吻：“你怎么會(huì)相信張三？”和“你怎么會(huì)相信那種鬼話(huà)？”以及“太讓人難以置信了！”但總的來(lái)說(shuō)，在這個(gè)每次都讓我們興奮不已的奇跡中，人們開(kāi)始介紹他們自己。他們開(kāi)始解釋自己是誰(shuí)，來(lái)自哪里，并且開(kāi)始相互問(wèn)問(wèn)題。慢慢的，隨著時(shí)間推移，人們循環(huán)參與不同的話(huà)題，每次都會(huì)更富有同理心，抓住更多的細(xì)微差異，更好奇。我們的記者和主持人在努力提供支持，因?yàn)檫@不是辯論，不是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，這不是周日早間脫口秀。不是賣(mài)弄詞藻，更不應(yīng)該用堆滿(mǎn)表情包和動(dòng)圖或者帶標(biāo)題的文章來(lái)證明自己的觀點(diǎn)。這不是用問(wèn)題陷阱贏得政治勝利的套路。

06:19

So what we've learned is that our state ofdiscord is bad for everyone. It is a deeply unhappy state of being. And peopletell us this again and again. They say they appreciate the chance to engagerespectfully, with curiosity and with openness, and that they're glad andrelieved for a chance to put down their arms. And so we do our work in directchallenge to the political climate in our country right now, and we do itknowing that it is difficult, challenging work to hold and support people inopposing backgrounds in conversation. And we do it knowing democracy depends onour ability to address our shared problems together. And we do this work byputting community at the heart of our journalistic process, by putting our egosto the side to listen first, to listen deeply, to listen around and through ourown biases, our own habits of thought, and to support others in doing the same.And we do this work knowing that journalism as an institution is struggling,and that it has always had a role to play and will continue to have a role toplay in supporting the exchange of ideas and views.

所以我們了解到，不和諧狀態(tài)對(duì)所有人都是壞事。這種狀態(tài)讓所有人都感到沮喪。人們一再告訴我們這點(diǎn)。他們說(shuō)，他們很感激有機(jī)會(huì)以尊重、好奇和開(kāi)放的態(tài)度參與進(jìn)來(lái)，他們?yōu)橛袡C(jī)會(huì)放下戒備而感到高興和寬慰。因此，我們的工作是直接挑戰(zhàn)我國(guó)內(nèi)目前的政治氣候，我們知道去舉辦和支持不同背景的人對(duì)話(huà)這是一項(xiàng)困難而有挑戰(zhàn)性的工作。我們知道民主取決于我們一起解決共同問(wèn)題的能力。我們做這個(gè)工作是通過(guò)把社群放在我們新聞過(guò)程的中心，通過(guò)把自我先放在一邊，先傾聽(tīng)，認(rèn)真傾聽(tīng)，傾聽(tīng)周?chē)穆曇?，通過(guò)我們的偏見(jiàn)，我們自己的思維習(xí)慣，并且支持別人也這樣做。我們?cè)谛袆?dòng)的時(shí)候就知道新聞業(yè)面對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題一直很掙扎，它一直需要扮演，并且要繼續(xù)扮演支持交換意見(jiàn)和觀點(diǎn)的角色。

07:28

For many of the participants in our groups,there are lasting reverberations. Many people have become Facebook friends andin-real-life friends too, across political lines. After we closed that firstTrump/Clinton project, about two-thirds of the women went on to form their ownFacebook group and they chose a moderator from each state and they continue totalk about difficult and challenging issues. People tell us again and againthat they're grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this work, gratefulto know that people on the other side aren't crazy, grateful that they've had achance to connect with people they wouldn't have otherwise talked to.

對(duì)我們隊(duì)伍中的許多參與者而言，這產(chǎn)生了持續(xù)的影響。很多人成為了Facebook的好友和現(xiàn)實(shí)中的好友，跨越了政治的邊界。在我們關(guān)掉第一個(gè)川普/希拉里項(xiàng)目后，大約2/3的女性，開(kāi)設(shè)了她們自己的Facebook群組，并且她們從每個(gè)州選了個(gè)主持人去繼續(xù)討論分歧和具有挑戰(zhàn)的問(wèn)題。人們一次又一次地告訴我們，他們很感激有這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)成為這個(gè)項(xiàng)目中的一部分，很慶幸知道另一邊的人并非不可理喻，很高興他們有機(jī)會(huì)能夠跟可能永遠(yuǎn)都不會(huì)去交流的人建立聯(lián)系。

08:04

A lot of what we've seen and learned,despite the fact that we call ourselves Spaceship Media, is not at all rocketscience. If you call people names, if you label them, if you insult them, theyare not inclined to listen to you. Snark doesn't help, shame doesn't help,condescension doesn't help. Genuine communication takes practice and effort andrestraint and self-awareness. There isn't an algorithm to solve where we are.Because real human connection is in fact real human connection. So lead withcuriosity, emphasize discussion not debate, get out of your silo, because realconnection across difference ... this is a salve that our democracy sorelyneeds.

盡管我們稱(chēng)自己為宇宙飛船媒體，但我們看到和學(xué)到的很多東西，并不是什么高深的學(xué)問(wèn)。如果你對(duì)人出言不遜，如果你給他們貼上標(biāo)簽，如果你侮辱他們，他們就會(huì)傾向于對(duì)你置之不理。惡聲惡語(yǔ)幫不上忙，羞恥感沒(méi)有用，態(tài)度傲慢無(wú)更是雪上加霜。真正的溝通需要練習(xí)、努力、克制和自我覺(jué)悟。沒(méi)有一個(gè)算法可以解決我們現(xiàn)在的處境。因?yàn)檎嬲娜穗H關(guān)系就是人際關(guān)系。所以以好奇為指引，強(qiáng)調(diào)討論而非爭(zhēng)執(zhí)，避免坐井觀天，因?yàn)榭缭椒制绲恼嬲B接——正是我們民主迫切需要的一劑強(qiáng)心針。

08:52

Thank you.

謝謝。

08:53

(Applause)

（鼓掌）