PBS高端访谈:回顾60年代的暴力抗议（在线收听）

Hari Sreenivasan: We know from history that that both peaceful and violent demonstrations can change the political landscape. Omar Wasow is an assistant professor in the department of politics at Princeton University and studies the history and political effects of protest. Omar, you've been looking at the 60s as a period of social unrest, but also how that influenced opinion and you just recently published some of this. What have you learned?

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：历史告诉我们，无论是和平示威还是暴力示威都会改变政治格局。奥马尔·瓦索是美国普林斯顿大学的政治系的助理教授，他研究的方向是抗议的历史影响和政治影响。奥马尔，你有关注过60年代的社会骚乱，以及社会骚乱对民意的影响，你最近还发布了与此有关的内容。你了解到的情况是怎样的呢？

Omar Wasow: I looked at both nonviolent and violent protests in the 1960s. And to be clear, this is looking at thousands of protests over about a dozen years. And what I found was that protests are enormously powerful at generating press. And in addition, what the news covers predicts what changes in public opinion. So when there was a massive wave in the early part of the 1960s of nonviolent protests that drove headlines about civil rights. In a later period in the 1960s, as we start to see more violent protest, we see more coverage of riots and public opinion shifts. And the most important problem, people say, is issues of crime and riots.

奥马尔·瓦索：我回望了上世纪60年代的暴力抗议和非暴力抗议。在那些年里，有数千次抗议事件。我发现的是抗议非常有助于产生压力。此外，新闻报道预测的民意变化是怎样的呢？上世纪60年代初期出现了一大批非暴力抗议事件，这些事件都以与民权有关的标题上了头条。上世纪60年代末期开始出现更多的暴力抗议，我们看到了更多与暴动和民意变动有关的报道。人们认为，最重要的问题是犯罪问题和暴动问题。

Hari Sreenivasan: So is it about the framing or is it about the actual actions? Meaning if it's nonviolent protest that influence opinion in one direction do violent protests have opposite, maybe the opposite effect?

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：是与表达有关，还是与实际行动有关呢？意思是不是：如果非暴力抗议朝某个方向带动民意，那么暴力抗议是否有反向效果呢？

Omar Wasow: So framing matters enormously here. And I think both protest tactics and media coverage matter a lot. So they're both important actors. And protesters obviously have the ability to make choices about what kinds of tactics they employ, what kinds of strategies in terms of rhetoric, what kinds of things are done. For example, in the 1960s, we see really remarkable intention to create very dramatic images that would help to, in the language of the 1960s shock the conscience of the nation. The framing that the media does is really central here. So whether we're sort of looking through the eyes of the protesters or really through the eyes of the police matters a lot. And that kind of justice frame or a police-centric frame does a lot to shift public opinion. And in the latter part of the 1960s that we saw more violent protest arise the frame really does shift from justice to this kind of focus on kind of disorder and riots and that that shift in the media frame has a significant influence on public opinion.

奥马尔·瓦索：在这个问题上，表达就起到了很大的作用。我想抗议的策略和媒体的报道很重要，两者都是很重要的因素。抗议者当然有能力就自己要采取何种策略做出选择，也可以选择辞藻上用什么策略以及要做哪种事情。比如，上世纪60年代，我们看到抗议者有很强烈的意愿想要制造出惊心动魄的图片，为自己造势。用上世纪60年代的话来说就是震惊全国的良知。媒体的用词方式在这里有主要的作用。所以，我们是否能透过抗议者的双眼和警察的双眼来看透他们的所想是非常重要。所以，是以司法为中心的表达还是以警察为中心的表达对于改变民意有着很大的作用。上世纪60年代末期，我们注意到有暴力抗议的数量增加，表达方式从以司法为中心转为以秩序混乱和暴动频发为中心，这种表达方式的变化对公共观点有很大的影响。

Hari Sreenivasan: One of the questions that people have is, how will this play a role in November's election?

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：人们有一个问题是——这会对11月的总统选举有何影响？

Omar Wasow: What I see in the 1960s is that counties that were near nonviolent protests vote more in the kind of coalition that is aligned with black interest right. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passes. The Democratic Party becomes the party of black interests. And we see a shift where people are near nonviolent protests that are kind of liberalizing effect of nonviolent protests. At the same time, what I also see is the counties that are close to violent protest vote more conservatively.

奥马尔·瓦索：上世纪60年代，我注意到很多国家更贴近于非暴力抗议的国家在与黑人权力有关的联盟里投票更多。1964年，《民权法案》通过。民主党成为代表黑人利益的党派。我们注意到接近于非暴力抗议的人群有某种自由化的效果。与此同时，我也注意到接近于暴力抗议的一些国家投票会更谨慎一些。

Hari Sreenivasan: So when we see peaceful protests, we respond in a way that thinks about human rights and civil rights. But when we see violent protests or riots, we respond in a way that wants more law and order, is that roughly, am I summarizing it correctly?

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：所以，每当我们看到和平抗议的时候，我们的反应都是与人权和民权有关的内容。但当我们看到暴力抗议或者暴动的时候，我们的反应都是希望有更多的法律和秩序，我的总结您觉得正确吗？

Omar Wasow: Yeah, I think that's a very good summary, and I think it's also really important to begin with the sort of people's sense of rage and grief and horror at what they saw in this imagery, in this footage of George Floyd's death. Right. That seeing a member of the state engage in violence against an unarmed citizen is is enraging for a lot of people. And when our attention focuses on that act of state violence, it it moves that, you know, there's a persuadable chunk of voters who sort of say, oh, I care about that issue. That's something that's going to, you know, mobilize me. But as the conversation shifts to acts of protester initiated violence, it you know, for those persuadable voters, the story becomes more complicated. And protesters can move those this is what I see in the 1960s. And so we should it's also the kind of tactics protesters employ are a kind of rhetoric that is persuading voters who may be sympathetic both to George Floyd and potentially to concerns about disorder.

奥马尔·瓦索：正确，我觉得这个总结很精当。而且我觉得很重要的是一开始就要有通过弗洛伊德死前录像中看到的愤怒感和悲伤以及震惊。是的，看到一名警察对一名手无缚鸡之力的市民做出这样的举动，会让民众觉得很愤怒。而当我们的注意力聚焦在暴力事件上时，有一群摇摆不定的选民会表示说自己挺关心这个问题。还说这种事情会动员自己。但当对话演变为抗议者发起的暴力事件时，对这些摇摆不定的选民来说，情况就变得更为复杂了。抗议会让这些选民动摇，这是我从60年代的历史中观察到的现象。所以抗议者会用的一种言语上的策略是劝说对弗洛伊德有同情心的选民以及忧虑社会秩序的选民。

Hari Sreenivasan: Omar Wasow, assistant professor at Princeton University. Thanks so much for joining us.

哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：感谢普林斯顿大学奥马尔教授的分享。

Omar Wasow: Thank you so much, Hari.

奥马尔·瓦索：谢谢你，哈里。