11
二月

倫敦大爆炸與多元文化

作者 : 雅帆   在 國際視野 A Global View

2005年7月6日,英國全民上下都在密切注視2012年奧林匹克世運會主辦權花落誰家,當透過衛星電視直播從新加坡傳來倫敦申辦奧運成功的消息,頓時舉國歡騰亢奮。除了可替英國帶來政治經濟效益和製造就業機會外,更可為舉辦London2012奧運的主要場地區 — 「東倫敦」(East London) — 帶來包括城市建設、通訊和交通的重大發展。在倫敦這個現代化國際大都會,「東倫敦」卻是比較貧窮和可發展的地區,是來自不同國家多種族移民 (multi-ethnic immigrants) 包括穆斯林 (Muslim) 的聚居地,亦是滙集多元文化 (multiculture) 的大熔爐。英國政府為改善「東倫敦」區內居民的生活質素,特意選擇該區為舉辦London2012奧運的主要場地,可謂用心良苦。

2005年7月7日上午,亦即獲悉London2012奧運申辦成功尚未及二十四小時,卻發生「倫敦大爆炸」 (the London Blast),震驚世界。其中三枚「自殺式炸彈」 (suicide bomb),於倫敦當天早上八時五十分的上班繁忙時間,同時在地鐵 (the Tube) 三處不同地點爆炸;第四枚「自殺式炸彈」則約一小時後在一輛行駛中的雙層巴士引爆,大爆炸造成52人死亡和超過770人受傷。首相貝理雅 (Tony Blair) 雖然當時身在蘇格蘭的格倫伊格爾斯 (Gleneagles) 主持八大工業國高峰會 (G8 Summit),亦要兼程返回倫敦查察穩定情況後,再回蘇格蘭繼續會議。

2005年7月21日,即「倫敦大爆炸」發生後剛滿兩週,另有四枚「策劃爆炸品」(planned bomb) 同樣被放置在倫敦行駛中的三輛地鐵列車和一輛巴士,企圖重演歷史。每枚「策劃爆炸品」都是收藏於背囊内一個塑膠盒中,已被引爆,可幸爆炸失敗,沒有造成傷亡;兩天後再有第五枚「策劃爆炸品」,未經引爆已在一處叢林內一個棄置的背囊中被發現。其後,六名嫌疑犯落網,並已於2007年1月15日開始被提堂聆訊。六名嫌疑犯的身分不詳,據報都是從非洲國家進入英國居住,其中包括兩名來自索馬里 (Somalia);兩名來自埃塞俄比亞 (Ethiopia);一名來自厄立特里亞 (Eritrea);還有一名懷疑來自加納 (Ghana)。由於司法程序正在進行,其犯案動機及成因不便討論。

有關7月7日的「倫敦大爆炸」案,英國政府進行詳細調查,包括錄取12,500份證人口供 (statements),搜集26,000件證物 (Exhibits) (其中5,000件經科學鑑證),查閱6,000小時閉路電視錄影帶 (CCTV footage) 等;國會下議院並於2006年5月11日發表該爆炸案一分官方報告《Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005》,published by The Stationery Office。該報告確認了四名「自殺式炸彈」引爆者的身分,包括:Khan(30 歲)、Tanweer(22歲)、Hussain(18歲)和Lindsay(19歲),全部已於爆炸中死亡。

其中三名引爆者包括Khan、Tanweer和Hussain,全部都是第二代英籍公民 (second generation British Citizen)。他們的父母屬巴基斯坦裔 (Pakistan Origin),多年前從巴基斯坦到英國中部西約克郡 (West Yorkshire) 工作和定居,其後並取得英國公民身分。三名引爆者都在里兹 (Leeds) 出生、成長及接受教育,Khan及Tanweer持有大學學位,Hussain 亦高中畢業。三人的家境尚算充裕,Tanweer的父親更是當地一名商人,經營一間炸魚店 (Fish and Chips Shop)。第四名引爆者Lindsay於1985年9月在牙買加 (Jamaica) 出生,翌年隨母親移居英國哈德斯菲爾德(Huddersfield)。全部四人都是穆斯林,有強烈宗教信仰。

基於警方搜獲Khan於行動前所自拍的一卷錄影帶及其他資料顯示,上述官方報告評估四名引爆者「自殺式爆炸行為」的成因,是由於他們認為西方社會給與穆斯林敵視待遇的不公正,從而產生對西方社會強烈對抗及為其信仰殉道的慾望 (Fierce antagonism to perceived injustices by the West against Muslims and a desire for martyrdom)。

經歷「倫敦大爆炸」後,英國國會和輿論都強烈要求政府檢討其移民及多元文化政策的成效;面對政治和社會的重大壓力,英國政府必須正視和應付其多種族及多元文化社會所衍生的問題。為了改善移民及多元文化政策,英國政府於2006年引進一系列補救措施 (remedial measures),包括將批准適合申請英國公民身分的居留年資由四年延長至五年;並加入英語能力及公民常識 (citizenship) 考試合格的新規定;又頒令所有中學必須為年青一代增添公民常識和加入教授英國核心價值 (core British values) 課程;該等核心價值包括:言論自由 (freedom of speech)、民主與自由 (democracy and liberty) 及對不同社羣作出貢獻 (contribution to the different communities)。

從「倫敦大爆炸」的經歷中,英國國民領悟到多元文化政策的嚴重失效,主要評論觀點認為:多元文化一方面偏重給予「多種族新移民」(multi-ethnic immigrants) 於其社羣可保留原種族文化的權利;另一方面卻忽略要求新移民作為個人獨立主體必須肩負融入英國社會主流文化的責任。當時「保守黨」 (Conservative Party) 黨魁霍華德 (Michael Howard) 便曾在衛報 (the Guardian) 說:

“Perhaps one of the mistakes we have made in recent years is a tendency to place emphasis on the need to encourage the retention of attachment to other traditions, and not enough on the British identity we all share.”

佐治雅拿佳 (George Alagiah) 是英籍斯里蘭卡裔 (Sri Lanka Origin)人,於1967年僅十一歲便獨自從斯里蘭卡到英國寄宿學校讀書,並定居下來,現時出任英國電視廣播公司 (BBC) 電視頻道一台 (BBC One) 傍晚六點新聞 (Six O’Clock News) 主要報導員。他在2006年中出版其自傳:《A Home to Home, From immigrant boy to English man》, by George Alagiah, published by Little Brown Book Group,描述一名亞洲少年成長為英國人的心路歷程,寫作期間剛遇「倫敦大爆炸」,他在此書的〈前言〉論及多元文化時更感同身受,有如下申述:

“Multiculturalism has given us — immigrants — the right to be different but failed to provide sufficient incentives to integrate. As I ask later on in this book: has institutionalized tolerance for diversity led to institutional indifference to separation?”

“Reluctantly, I came to the conclusion that while there may indeed be many colours, many cultures in Britain, that did not necessarily mean there was any meaningful exchange between them. All too often these communities were immersed in their own traditions and, occasionally, suspicious of others.”

“Either way, we all have to cope with the dilemma faced by migrants through the ages — we are caught between the desire to fit in and the communal admonition to remember where we started. While we build one home here (not literally, but in our minds), we think back to the home we left behind. There is assimilation (同化) on the one side and heritage (文化遺產) on the other.”

筆者在一次偶然機會,能夠有緣閱讀到美籍日裔教授福山先生 (Professor Francis Fukuyama) 在英國《展望雜誌》(Prospect Magazine) 2007年2月號的封面文章,題為〈身分與移民〉(Identity and Migration),提出很多精闢的理論和見解;廣泛涉獵衆多有關「現代化」和「文明」的理念,包括 modern identity politics (現代身分認同政治)、multiculturalism (多元文化)、identity problem of migrants (移民的身分認同問題)、contemporary radical Islamism (當代激進伊斯蘭)、jihadist terrorist (聖戰主義恐佈分子)、terror attacks (恐佈襲擊)、modernization (現代化)、postmodernity (後現代主義) … …等概念及彼此之間的相互關係,文章深入淺出,頗能啟發思考。

「中華民族」是最大移民民族之一,僑民散居全世界每一國家及散佈七大洲每一角落,曾有豪言謔語:「祇要有陽光照射的地方,便有華人僑居。」中國國家或有實行鎖國政策,中國人民則從來最聰明、懂鑽空子,並不自我封鎖。中國僑民的新生代現時不再「落葉歸根」,放棄當「海歸派」回流祖國;反之,他們選擇在土生土長的外國地方落籍,未知他們會否遭遇到如「穆斯林移民」所面對有關身分認同的問題,與及和西方社會日常接觸時所發生的文化衝突 (clash of civilization)?不論在美加澳紐、英法德荷等地作長期定居、或短暫工作、留學的僑民,身在異域,未知何以自處?又如何去面對西方主流文化而作出適當反應?中國社會和穆斯林社會最大的分別,在於前者缺乏強烈的宗教信仰,然則當中國人和穆斯林人僑居海外,在融入西方主流文化之同時,可有異同之處,頗值詳細探討。

再者,現代中國透過改革開放,實行多個「現代化」,強調要「與世界接軌」;導致「全球一體化」(Globalisation)、「自由民主」(Liberal Democracy)、「多元文化」(multiculturalism) 等西方社會概念和許多西洋文化紛至沓來。在北京、上海和深圳等對外口岸居住或工作的中國公民,所感受外來西方文化的衝擊,日趨激烈。經歷東西文化的接觸,會否替現代中國社會帶來無可抗拒的文化衝擊和對中國人民產生身分危機?中國社會和人民應如何面對挑戰?

香港經歷英國一百五十多年西方資本主義的統治歷史,從小漁港兌變成國際金融中心;於1997年7月回歸中國懷抱,但仍然是東西文化滙聚的樞紐。香港人會否際此文化劇變之餘,霎時間感到一陣身分失落?募然地感到昔日的自我已無聲無息的溜走?抑或正在慶幸已尋回一個嶄新充實的自我?不禁想請香港人自問一句:「我是誰 (Who am I)?」

福山教授是美籍日裔人,在美國出生及成長。他的〈身分與移民〉文章,討論焦點是歐洲國家內「多種族移民」的身分認同、恐佈主義活動、多元文化社會的包容與融合等問題;文章在英國的《展望雜誌》發表,基本上就是體現「全球一體化」之下的結晶。他的〈身分與移民〉文章內,對上述「東西文明」的衝突,從社會學和國際政治學的角度提出一些理念、觀點和分析。當中尤其特別值得反思的理念,現引述如下,供各位參考 —

“… … human beings possess natural rights (天賦人權) as individuals in the state of nature — rights that can only be secured through a social contract (社會契約) that prevents one individual’s pursuit of self-interest from harming others.”

“But while modern liberalism clearly established the principle that state power should not be used to impose religious belief on individuals, it left unanswered the question whether individual freedom could conflict with the rights of people to uphold a particular religious tradition.”

“Multiculturalism — understood not just as tolerance of cultural diversity but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of racial, religious or cultural groups — has now become established in virtually all modern liberal democracies.”

“… … the root of radical Islamism is not cultural — that is, it is not a by-product of something inherent in Islam or the culture that this religion has produced. … … radical Islamism has emerged because Islam has become ‘deterritorialised’ in such a way as to throw open the whole question of Muslim identity. ”

“… … identity becomes problematic precisely when Muslims leave traditional Muslim societies by, for example, emigrating to western Europe. One’s identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside societies; indeed, there is strong pressure to conform to the west’s prevailing cultural norms (文化規範). The question of authenticity arises in a way that it never did in the traditional society, since there is now a gap between one’s inner identity as a Muslim and one’s behaviour vis-à-vis the surrounding society.”

“Understanding radical Islamism as a form of identity politics also explains why second and third-generation European Muslims have turned to it. First-generation immigrants have usually not made a psychological break with the culture of their land of birth and carry traditional practices with them to their new homes. Their children, by contrast, are often contemptuous of their parents’ religiosity, and yet have not become integrated into the culture of the new society. Stuck between two cultures with which they cannot identify, they find a strong appeal in the universalist ideology of contemporary jihadism .”

“But even in the Muslim countries, … … it is the importing of modernity into those societies that produces the crisis of identity and radicalisation. Globalisation, driven by technology and economic opening, has blurred the boundaries between the developed world and traditional Muslim societies. It is not an accident that so many of the perpetrators of recent terrorist plots and incidents were either European Muslims radicalised in Europe or came from privileged sectors of Muslim societies with opportunities for contact with the west.”

“If contemporary radical Islamism is understood as a product of identity politics and hence a modern phenomenon, then two implications follow. First, … … modernization and the transition of Gemeinschaft (community;社區) to Gesellschaft (society;社會) constitute an intensely alienating process that has been negatively experienced by countless individuals in different societies. … … Second, the problem of jihadist terrorism will not be solved by bringing modernization and democracy to the middle east. The Bush adminsitration’s view that terrorism is driven by a lack of democracy overlooks the fact that so many terrorists were radicalised in democratic European countries. Modernisation and democracy are good things in their own right, but in the Muslim world they are likely to increase, not dampen, the terror problem in the short run.”

“… … Similarly, most other European countries tend to conceive of multiculturalism as a framework for the coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating newcomers into a dominant culture. … … Europe’s failure to better integrate its Muslims is a ticking time bomb that has already contributed to terrorism. … … Resolution of this problem will require a two-pronged approach, involving changes in behaviour by immigrant minorities and their descendants as well as by members of the dominant national communities.”

“The first prong of the solution is to recognize that the old multicultural model has not been a big success in countries such as the Netherlands and Britain, and that it needs to be replaced by more energetic efforts to integrate non-western populations into a common liberal culture. The old multicultural model was based on group recognition and group rights. Out of a misplaced sense of respect for cultural differences — and in some cases out of imperial guilt — it ceded too much authority to cultural communities to define rules of behaviour for their own members. … … members of immigrant communities and their offspring deserve to be treated equally as individuals, not as members of cultural communities. … … Cultural diversity was something to be practiced largely in the private sphere, where it would not lead to any serious violations of individual rights or otherwise challenge the essentially liberal social order. … … some contemporary Muslim communities are making demands for group rights that simply cannot be squared with liberal principles of individual equality.”

“… … many European countries have corporatist traditions that continue to respect communal rights and fail decisively to separate church and state. … … Most European societies … … set important precedents for the Muslim communities, and they are obstacles to the maintenance of a wall of separation between religion and state. If Europe is to establish the liberal principle of a pluralism based on individuals rather than groups, then it must address these corporatist institutions inherited from the past.”

“The other prong of the solution to the problem of Muslim integration concerns the expectations and behaviour of the majority communities in Europe. National identity continues to be understood and experienced in ways that sometimes make it a barrier for newcomers who do not share the ethnicity and religious background of the native-born. National identity has always been socially constructed; it revolves around history, symbols, heroes and the stories that a community tells about itself. This sense of attachment to a place and a history should not be rubbed out, but it should be made as open as possible to new citizens.”

“The dilemma of immigration and identity ultimately converges with the larger problem of the valuelessness of postmodernity. The rise of relativism (相對論) has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition of citizenship. Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place. But aside from their celebration of endless diversity and tolerance, postmodern people find it difficult to agree on the substance of the good life to which they aspire in common. … … If postmodern societies are to move towards a more serious discussion of identity, they will need to uncover those positive virtues that define what it means to be a member of the wider society. If they do not, they may be overwhelmed by people who are more sure about who they are.”

上文撮錄自福山教授的〈身分與移民〉(Identity and Migration) 一文,謹此鳴謝。他現任教於美國霍普金斯大學 (Johns Hopkins University) 國際研究學院 (School of International Studies),負責國際政治經濟學課程 (International Politics and Economy courses)。

(〈Identity and Migration〉 is the cover story of the UK 《Prospect Magazine》 February 2007 Issue. It is adapted from an article first published in Journal of Democracy 17:2 (2006) © National Endowment for Democracy and the Johns Hopkins University Press. An extract of the article was also published in the UK Sunday Times on 28 January 2007.)

備註:本文所撮錄英語文句,其括號內所引用的中文繙譯為筆者方便讀者而附加,並非原文提供。

這篇文章發表 於 星期日, 二月 11th, 2007 9:39 下午 在 國際視野 A Global View. 你可以回應這篇文章透過 RSS 2.0 feed. 你可以 留下回覆, 或 引用 從你的個人網站.

2 comments so far

Sweety
 1 

很開心有機會讀到這篇文章, 多謝.

三月 13th, 2007 at 11:30 上午
雅帆
 2 

非常感謝 Sweety 的留言,有空請多來訪,海遠和我及其他人員將繼續努力提高本網誌的質素,以答謝讀者的支持。

雅帆

三月 13th, 2007 at 5:13 下午

留下回覆

Name
Mail (will not be published)
URI
廻響