Who Makes Better Foreign Policy:Artists or Scientists?

By

There are books that are read and books that are admired, and they are not necessarily the same books.“Worldmaking,”by David Milne, seems destined to be more admired than read.Its subject alone tends to induce a respectful but glazed silence.If the topic is intellectually hefty1hefty很大的；超出一般的。, the book itself is heftier still(it weighs in at more than 500 pages of text), and the print is so small that readers over 40 would do well to keep their magnifying glasses handy.

[2]This is a shame, since readers who can get past the book’s forbidding presentation will find much to enjoy.Milne, a historian at Britain’s University of East Anglia, offers up detailed and often surprisingly moving portraits of nine prominent American foreign policy thinkers, from Alfred Thayer Mahan and George Kennan to Henry Kissinger and,finally, Barack Obama.Each portrait is rich in detail, contextualizing its subject’s understanding of America’s role in the world and offering a glimpse into the debates and dilemmas that have troubled policymakers for a century or more.

[3]We begin in 1949, in medias res2in medias res直接切入本題；單刀直入。,as Kennan, the State Department’s director of policy planning staff, and his deputy, Paul Nitze, struggle to develop a critical policy recommendation for President Harry Truman: In light of evidence that the Soviets had tested an atomic weapon late in 1949, should the United States push forward with its own efforts to develop a hydrogen bomb?Milne quotes Churchill’s observation3observation（尤指據(jù)所見、所聞、所讀而作的）評論。that the hydrogen bomb, with its worlddestroying potential, would be as far removed from the atom bomb as the atom bomb was“from the bow and arrow.”

[4]For Kennan, deciding whether the United States should seek to develop fusion bombs could not be reduced to a mere question of strategy; it was a moral issue, freighted with near-theological significance.Ultimately, Kennan“crafted a seventy-nine-page paper, rich in history and philosophy,”counseling“against building this fearsome weapon.”Fusion weapons4fusion weapon核武器主要包括裂變武器（第一代核武器，通常稱為原子彈）和聚變武器（亦稱為氫彈，分為兩級及三級式）。, he argued, could lead only to wars that no one could win: No nation could be trusted with a weapon so dangerous.He cited Shakespeare’s“Troilus and Cressida”:

And appetite, an universal wolf,

So doubly seconded with will and power,

Must make perforce an universal prey,

And last eat up himself.

[5]The solution, to Kennan, lay in calling on all states to disavow fusion weapons and give control over nuclear research to an international organization.

[6]Kennan’s protege Nitze saw things quite differently.Nitze had little use for philosophy or poetry; to him, the matter was simple.The Soviets surely would not stop at the atom bomb, so the United States couldn’t afford to stop there, either.The Cold War’s cold logic required an arms race; peace, precarious or not,could best be secured only through what later came to be called the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

[7]The face-off between Kennan and Nitze is compellingly described.Though Milne makes no secret of his own views(Kennan’s call for the United States to abandon H-bomb development was“well-intentioned but dangerous,”he writes), his sympathy for the cerebral5cerebral大腦的；理智的。and bookish Kennan is just as evident.A similar empathy characterizes his examination of the book’s other central characters, shining through even in the least likely of places.Readers inclined to dismiss Paul Wolfowitz as a neoconservative warmonger6warmonger戰(zhàn)爭販子，好戰(zhàn)者，戰(zhàn)狂，好戰(zhàn)分子。, for instance, may find themselves in grudging7grudging勉強的，不情愿的。sympathy with the idealistic young scholar(who marched for civil rights in the early 1960s, then“dropped his tenure-track8tenure-track終身教職；終身教授。job at Yale as if it were a paper route”when offered the opportunity to serve in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.)

[8]Then there is Adm.Mahan, whose skepticism of America’s ability to impose its way of life on other nations is often missed by those who caricature9caricature滑稽地描述。him as a flag-waving advocate of American imperialism, and Obama, now lambasted10lambast嚴厲申斥。on the right by critics who view him as passive and indecisive, even as critics on the left condemn his pitilessly lethal approach to counterterrorism.Milne quotes a passage in Obama’s early memoir,“Dreams From My Father,”that seems, in hindsight11in hindsight事后想來。, remarkably telling.As a college student poring over12pore over集中精神閱讀。the classics of African American literature, he was dismayed:“In every page of every book, in Bigger Thomas13小說《土生子》（Native Son）的男主人公?！锻辽印肥窍碜u美國文壇的黑人作家理查德·賴特1940年創(chuàng)作的長篇小說，被認為是黑人文學中的里程碑。別格·托馬斯過著饑寒交迫的生活，在白人眼中是“壞黑鬼”，而他對白人則懷著又恨又怕的心理，后來無意中殺死了一個白人姑娘，被判死刑。and invisible men14此處化用了美國著名黑人作家拉爾夫·艾里森（Ralph Ellison，1914—1994）的代表作《看不見的人》（Invisible Man，1952）的書名。與理查德·賴特的“抗議小說”（the black protest novel）不同的是，艾里森《看不見的人》將種族問題置于錯綜復雜的社會結構中，來研究“我們（指黑人）是誰”的問題。, I kept finding the same anguish, the same doubt; a selfcontempt that neither irony nor intellect seemed able to deflect15deflect轉移；引開。...Only Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different.His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me;...his unadorned insistence on respect promised a new and uncompromising order, martial16martial尚武好戰(zhàn)的。in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”

[9]It is when Milne turns to theory that“Worldmaking”falls somewhat flat.While rightly dismissive of the reductionist17reductionist主張把高級運動形式還原為低級運動形式的一種哲學觀點。它認為現(xiàn)實生活中的每一種現(xiàn)象都可看成是更低級、更基本的現(xiàn)象的集合體或組成物，因而可以用低級運動形式的規(guī)律代替高級運動形式的規(guī)律。claim that foreign policy theorists are divided between realists and idealists, Milne uses his opening vignette18vignette（清晰展示人物特征、局勢等的）短文，簡介?！猼he standoff between Kennan and Nitze—to introduce his own alternative binary19binary二，雙，復；雙體，復體。:“art versus science.”

[10]The artists of American foreign policy, represented by Mahan, Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Kissinger and Obama, view the world with a sense of“tragedy and caution,”combined with a“reluctance...to depart from observed historical precedents.”They see abstract theorizing as foolhardy20foolhardy莽撞的。, and view intuition and humility as the sole touchstones in an uncertain, unpredictable world.Meanwhile, the scientists, typified by Woodrow Wilson, Charles Beard, Nitze and Wolfowitz, believe they can both discern and transcend the patterns of history.They see the world as malleable21malleable可塑的；易受影響（或改變）的。,capable of being remade through the joint application of American power and American moral rectitude22rectitude正直；誠實。.

[11]But as Milne acknowledges, the art/science binary is as susceptible to criticism as the realist/idealist one.Kennan,for instance, is introduced in the first pages of“Worldmaking”as a man convinced that a U.S.decision to eschew23eschew避免。the hydrogen bomb — on moral grounds — would persuade the Soviets to do likewise.Yet the conviction that an American moral vision could change the course of world history is, in Milne’s framework, surely the vision of a scientist, not an artist; it smacks24smack啪的一聲使勁放（或扔、甩等）。of grand Wilsonian dreams, not the caution and attentiveness to precedent that Milne sees as characterizing artists.Milne acknowleges this but excuses Kennan’s deviation from his artist role by noting that“the fate of the world was deemed to be at stake.”For a book dedicated to the proposition that much about American foreign policy can be explained by the art/science binary, it seems rather odd to open with a vignette in which a leading fi gure plays a distinctly out-of-character role.

[12]But Milne would prefer to have it both ways:“The individuals who populate this book exhibit these disciplinary tendencies to varying degrees,”he admits,and“this is no clear-cut binary.”Some,after all,“are partial to both artistry and scientism,”and the art/science binary is thus“intended as an illuminating background theme, not as a reductive master narrative.”That’s good, since if most of the individuals profiled turn out to fall less than neatly into one of his two categories,the art/science binary doesn’t tell much of a story.One might as well say that it’s all a matter of personality, or that U.S.foreign policy has been marked by a divide between the overly humble and the overly confident, or the pessimistic and the optimistic.Even after more than 500 pages,“Worldmaking”leaves the reader suspecting that almost any such binary might have been defended with equal success.

[13]Many readers also will quibble with25quibble with（為小事）發(fā)牢騷。Milne’s choice of top foreign policy intellectuals.Not a single woman makes his list, for instance.All the same, it’s a good book.Foreign policy aficionados26aficionados（某方面的）狂熱愛好者。will be tempted to buy it,place their pristine27pristine嶄新的。copy on a coffee table and speak of it in hushed, reverential tones.I suggest reading it instead.■

有些書讓人閱讀，而有些書讓人景仰，這兩類書未必有交集。戴維·米爾恩的《構建世界》注定是讓人景仰多過讓人閱讀的。單是書的主題就會讓讀者因敬畏而陷入木然的沉默。理論上，一本書如果主題宏大，它本身也會是大部頭（這本書全文長達500多頁），并且印刷字體很小，年過40歲的讀者需手持放大鏡才能閱讀。

[2]這太可惜了，因為讀者一旦克服其令人生畏的外表，就能享受其中。米爾恩是英國東安格利亞大學的一名歷史學家，他細致描繪了9位美國杰出的外交政策思想家，其描寫出奇地感人，其中包括阿爾弗雷德·賽耶·馬漢、喬治·凱南、亨利·艾爾弗雷德·基辛格和巴拉克·奧巴馬。該書把各主人公對美國所扮演角色的不同理解置于全球背景下，對每個人物進行了詳實描寫，窺探那些曾困擾了決策者一個世紀乃至更長時間的爭論和困境。

[3]我們直接從1949年說起，在一系列事件中，美國國務院政策規(guī)劃司司長凱南及其副手保羅·尼茨在為哈里·杜魯門總統(tǒng)提出一項重大的政策建議時遇到困難：證據(jù)顯示，蘇聯(lián)已于1949年底試驗了一件原子武器，美國是否應努力研發(fā)一枚氫彈呢？米爾恩引用了丘吉爾的話說，氫彈具有毀滅世界的力量，其與原子彈的差別就像原子彈與“弓箭”的差別那么大。

[4]對凱南而言，美國不能僅僅將是否推進氫彈研制簡化為一個戰(zhàn)略問題。這是個道德問題，具有近乎神學的意義。最后，凱南“起草了一份含大量史實和哲學思想的文件，長達79頁”，奉勸總統(tǒng)“不要制造這種可怕的武器”。他聲稱，聚變武器只會引發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭，而戰(zhàn)爭沒有贏家：如此危險的武器放在任何一個國家手上都無法讓人放心。他引用了莎士比亞《特洛伊羅斯與克瑞西達》中的一段話：

欲望，這一頭貪心不足的餓狼，

得到了意志和權力的兩重輔佐，

勢必會把全世界供它的饞吻，

然后把自己也吃下去。

[5]對凱南而言，解決方法是呼吁各國抵制氫彈研制，并將核研究的管控權交由一個國際組織。

[6]凱南的部下尼茨對此看法截然不同。尼茨沒有引用哲學思想或詩歌；對他來說，問題很簡單。蘇聯(lián)無疑不會止于研制原子彈，因此美國也不能就此打住。冷戰(zhàn)的殘酷邏輯要求雙方進行一場軍備競賽；和平——不論它是否穩(wěn)定——只能憑借后來被稱為“互有把握摧毀對方的信念”得到最佳保障。

[7]米爾恩筆下，這場凱南和尼茨的對峙引人入勝。盡管米爾恩態(tài)度明確（他在書中寫道，凱南呼吁美國放棄研制氫彈的行為“出于善意但極其危險”），但他顯然對理智又學究的凱南感同身受。他也帶著類似的同理心去審視書中其他主人公，這種同理心甚至滲透到了全書最不可能出現(xiàn)的地方。例如，讀者會發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們曾鄙夷保羅·沃爾福威茨是個新保守主義戰(zhàn)爭販子，如今卻能勉強理解這個充滿理想主義的年輕學者（保羅·沃爾福威茨于20世紀60年代早期參加美國民權運動，得到軍備控制與裁軍署的工作機會后，“放棄了在耶魯?shù)慕K身教職，好像這是一份送報紙的工作”）。

[8]接著本書介紹了馬漢上將，他質(zhì)疑美國能否將本國的生活方式強加于他國，那些將其丑化為美帝國主義旗手的人卻常常忽視這一點；還介紹了奧巴馬，在右翼評論家抨擊他消極被動、優(yōu)柔寡斷的同時，左翼評論家也譴責其對反恐怖主義實施了無情的致命打擊。米爾恩引用了奧巴馬早期自傳《我父親的夢想》中的一段話，事后想來，這段話很能說明一些問題。大學時代的奧巴馬細細翻閱了非裔美國文學經(jīng)典后，心情沮喪：“在每一本書的每一頁里，在別格·托馬斯和那些被視而不見的人身上，我不斷地發(fā)現(xiàn)著同樣的痛苦和同樣的懷疑；一種不論是諷刺還是智慧都無法使之轉向的自卑……只有馬爾科姆·艾克斯的自傳似乎講了一些不同的東西。他不斷地自我創(chuàng)造觸動了我；……他對尊重的樸素堅持讓人看到一種不妥協(xié)的新秩序的希望，秩序就如軍紀一般，是以純意志力鍛造出來的?！?/p>

[9]米爾恩轉而談論理論后，《構建世界》開始變得有些索然無味。盡管還原論者有充分理由不屑于將外交政策理論家分為現(xiàn)實主義和理想主義，米爾恩在開篇描寫凱南和尼茨的僵持狀態(tài)，由此引出了自己的另類二元觀點：“藝術與科學的對決?！?/p>

[10]美國外交政策方面的“藝術家”以馬漢、凱南、沃爾特·李普曼、基辛格和奧巴馬為代表，他們“不愿違背歷史先例”，以“悲觀審慎”的態(tài)度看待世界，認為提出抽象的理論是有勇無謀的行為；世界變化無常，不可預測，只有直覺和謙遜才是唯一的試金石。同時，以伍德羅·威爾遜、查爾斯·比爾德、尼茨和沃爾福威茨為代表的外交“科學家”，則相信自己能洞悉和超越歷史格局，認為世界具有可塑性，美國力量和德行并舉，便能夠重建世界。

[11]但是，正如米爾恩所言，藝術/科學二元論和現(xiàn)實主義/理想主義二元論一樣容易招致批評。例如，根據(jù)《構建世界》最初幾頁的介紹，凱南堅信如果美國基于道德考慮決定放棄氫彈研制，就會說服蘇聯(lián)做出同樣的選擇。米爾恩認為，堅信美國道德觀能改變世界歷史進程的觀點無疑是科學家而非藝術家的想法。這種觀點打碎了威爾遜的美夢，與他認為的藝術家特征（即小心謹慎對待歷史先例）相悖。雖然米爾恩承認這一點，卻為凱南不符其感性派的行為辯解：“當時世界命運正處于生死關頭?！睂σ槐局鲝埗鄶?shù)美國外交政策都可運用藝術/科學二元論來解釋的書而言，作者選擇開篇介紹這樣一個行事作風與角色設定明顯不符的主角，似乎會讓人覺得有點奇怪。

[12]但米爾恩有意二者兼顧：“本書中的眾多人物都在不同程度上體現(xiàn)出這類特點，”他承認，“沒有界限鮮明的二元論?！笨傊?，有些人“既有藝術氣質(zhì)，又有科學態(tài)度”，藝術/科學二元論旨在闡明故事背后的主題，而非簡要敘述故事本身”。這樣很好，因為如果所刻畫的多數(shù)人最后都不能清晰地歸入兩類中的一類，那么藝術/科學二元論只會成為無稽之談。那還不如說是個性使然，或者，美國外交政策分為謙遜派和自信派，或悲觀派和樂觀派。讀者甚至會在讀完500多頁的《構建世界》后覺得幾乎每一種二元論都能說得通。

[13]許多讀者在米爾恩對杰出外交政策學者的選擇頗有微詞。例如，他的名單中沒有女性。盡管如此，這仍是一本好書。外交政策愛好者會禁不住誘惑將其收入囊中，嶄新的一本置于茶幾上，充滿敬意地低聲說起它。不過我建議真正讀讀此書。 □