打字猴:1.7017232e+09
1701723200
1701723201 11Quoted by Thomas Blass,The Man Who Shocked the World,pp. 268269.
1701723202
1701723203 12Ibid.,pp. 269270.
1701723204
1701723205 13在《服从权威》的德文译文序言中米尔格伦写道:“由于此书与德国人特别相关,译成德文应当是‘服从’,毕竟这曾经是德国人最爱用的借口。在进行了这一实验之后,我想,如果美国有同样的设施——集中营、毒气室——找美国人来操作这些设施一定不成问题。然而,尽管所有的人都可能盲目服从,但这并不能为德国人脱罪,因为他们把一种潜在的可能变成了实实在在的残忍和实实在在的屠杀。”Quoted by Thomas Blass,The Man Who Shocked the World,p. 267。
1701723206
1701723207 14Philip Zimbardo,“When Good People Do Evil.”Yale Alumni Magazine January/February(2007):4047,p. 44.
1701723208
1701723209 15Hannah Arendt,The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York:Harvest/HBJ,[1951]1973.
1701723210
1701723211 16Quoted by Thomas Blass,The Man Who Shocked the World,pp. 279280.
1701723212
1701723213 17Stanley Milgram,Obedience to Authority,pp. 178179.米尔格伦的结论是:“这是一个(人性)自然设计在我们身上的缺陷,由于这个缺陷,我们人类最终能否继续存在的希望都很渺茫。”(188)玛希(C. Marsh)认为米尔格伦的看法太悲观。她认为:“服从和不服从都是可以由社会力量来塑造的能力。有的社会命令人民服从,甚至还要盲目服从。但是,对于社会和个人来说,……是否还应该学习什么时候必须质疑服从,什么时候必须不服从呢?”玛希举了一个例子,1998年,人权组织曾为人权人士和环境保护人士提供非暴力抗议策略的训练。来自全世界许多国家的100多位年轻人参加了一个6天的训练计划,学习公民不服从的策略。玛希问道:“如果参加米尔格伦实验的是这些年轻人,实验结果将会如何呢?他们是不是会更多地提出问题呢?他们是不是会拒绝服从呢?”玛希提出的问题是合理的。但问题是,学习服从和不服从的环境都离不开特定的权力制度。在民主制度下,可以有这样的人权训练,但在极权制度下呢?在极权制度下,我们曾经见到过这样的情形:一面鼓励年轻人不服从(对某些人“造反”),一面却诱导他们绝对而盲目地服从(“理解的要执行,不理解的也要执行”)。Caryl Marsh,“A Science Museum Exhibit on Milgram’s Obedience Research:History,Description,and Visitors’ Reactions.”In Thomas Blass,Obedience to Authority:Current Perspective on the Milgram Paradigm. Mahwah,N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers,2000.
1701723214
1701723215 18Stanley Milgram,Obedience to Authority:An Experimental View. New York:Harper and Row,1974,p.189.
1701723216
1701723217 19Steven Hartwell,“Moral Development,Ethical Conduct,and Clinical Education.”New York Law School Law Review,Vol. 35,1990.
1701723218
1701723219 20Arthur G. Miller,The Obedience Experiments,p. 201. Serge Moscovici,“Social Influence and Conformity.”In the Handbook of Social Psychology. Eds.,E. Aronson,M. Brewer,and J. M. Carlsmith,3rd ed.,347412. New York:Random House,1985,p. 378.
1701723220
1701723221 21Quoted by Ann L. Saltzman,“The Role of the Obedience Experiment in Holocaust Studies. The Case for Renewed Visibility.”In Thomas Blass,ed.,Obedience to Authority:Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. Mahwah,N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers,2000,p. 125.
1701723222
1701723223 人性—文化—制度:文化决定论和纳粹极权
1701723224
1701723225 1Daniel Goldhagen,Hitler’s Willing Executioners:Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New Yrok:Knopf,1996,p. 9.
1701723226
1701723227 2Dominick LaCapra. Review of Lawrence Langer’s “Preempting the Holocaust.”Holocaust and Genocide Studies 14:1(2000):102105,p. 102.
1701723228
1701723229 3例如,James C. Scott称此书为这个研究领域中的“创新而有力之作”。引自Lawrence Douglas,“Review of Hitler’s Willing Executioners:Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. ”Commonwealth 124:9(May 9,1997),p. 18。
1701723230
1701723231 4Raul Hilberg,The Destruction of the European Jews. Chicago:Ivan R Dee,1960. Hannah Arendt,Eichmann in Jerusalem:A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York:The Viking Press,1963.
1701723232
1701723233 5Daniel Goldhagen,Hitler’s Willing Executioners,p. 371.
1701723234
1701723235 6Ibid.,p. 403.
1701723236
1701723237 7Christopher R. Browning. Ordinary Men:Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York:HarperCollins,1992.
1701723238
1701723239 8Robert S. Wistrich,“Helping Hitler.”Commentary 102:1(1996):2732,p. 31.戈德哈根的说法为Wistrich所引。
1701723240
1701723241 9John Weiss,Ideology of Death:Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany. Chicago:Ivan R Dee,1995.
1701723242
1701723243 10奥地利在纳粹屠犹恶行中起了特别的作用。Robert S. Wistrich的研究发现,按人口比例,参加纳粹党的奥地利人是德国人的两倍。1938年Anschluss(奥地利并入德国)后,奥地利人口占大德国的8%,但却占党卫军人数的14%,占死亡集中营刽子手人员的40%,占艾希曼部下的70%。推动“最终解决方案”的许多主要人员都曾经是奥地利人,其中包括希特勒、艾希曼、恩斯特·卡尔滕布鲁纳(Ernst Kaltenbrunner Reich Main区警察首脑)、奥迪路·格洛博奇尼克(Odilo Globocnik,波兰死亡集中营的负责人)等。
1701723244
1701723245 11James E. Waller,“Perpetrators of the Holocaust:Divided and Unitary Self:Conceptions of Evildoing.”Holocaust and Genocide Studies 10:1(1996):1133,p. 12.
1701723246
1701723247 12Robert S. Wistrich,“Helping Hitler,”p. 31. 德国历史学家莫姆森也同样指出,反犹主义士纳粹屠杀犹太人的“必要条件”,但不是“充分条件”。他写道:“由于戈德哈根强调的是(普通德国人)在杀害中的暴力、虐待狂和快乐,他把读者的注意力从纳粹(对犹太人)迫害和灭绝的特殊性上转移开了。纳粹屠犹与早先有过的反犹浪潮或杀犹有质的区别,后者在人群感情冲动时高涨,在人群冲动消退时低落。正是这种传统式的杀犹经验,使得东欧的犹太委员会对纳粹屠犹作出了错误的估计,以为犹太人只要不还手,只要委屈求全,就能将事情化解。他们没有想到,以前那种‘撒野’式的攻击已经给纳粹井井有条的计划(和执行)所代替。”Hans Mommsen,“The Thin Patina of Civilization:AntiSemitism Was a Necessary,but by No Means a Sufficient,Condition for Holocaust.”In Robert R. Shandley,ed,. Unwilling Germans?:The Goldhagen Debate. London:University of Minnesota Press,1998,p. 193.
1701723248
1701723249 13Hannah Arendt,The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York:Harvest/HBJ,[1951] 1973,p. 311.
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.7017232e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]