與貧民窟的鬥爭 The Battle with the Slum

20 世紀初紐約市下東區的貧民窟街景

    要為我們消除貧民窟，要為貧民窟將我們消滅，二者必居其一。

    雅各布‧A‧裡斯(1849－1914)出生於丹麥，二十一歲移居美國。幾年後，他成為紐約市一家報社記者，報導腐敗、醜聞以及紐約下東區貧民生活。他於1890年出版的《另一半人怎樣生活》，促使官方通過立法對經濟公寓進行改革。

    《與貧民窟的鬥爭》是《另一半人怎樣生活》的姊妹篇，發表於1902年。裡斯作為社會評論家，與其同行首次意識到罪惡的貧困週期對家庭、社區、教育及就業機會的全面影響。他把讀者吸引在自己身邊，向政治官僚開戰，為社會進步而戰。他相信，文字具有揭露政治腐敗及社會罪惡的威力，這是專門報道醜事的新聞界進步人士的共同特徵。

    下面文章節選自裡斯的《與貧民窟的鬥爭》。

    貧民窟的歷史與文明一樣古老。文明意味著一個種族向前發展。在一個種族裏，通常有一些人由於這樣或那樣的原因無法跟上其他人的步伐，或是被同伴們擠出行進的隊伍。這些人掉隊了，當遠遠地被拋在隊伍後頭時，他們便失去希望，失去抱負，最終放棄一切。打這開始，假如他們孤立無援，他們便成為外部環境的犧牲品，環境則成為他們的主宰，惡劣的主宰。這些人相互拽著往下沈，愈陷愈深。上一代人的惡劣環境又傳給下一代人。於是，由於人數為多，貧民窟便自然形成。與貧民窟的鬥爭始 於文明與之作對之時。在良知與恐懼和自我利益共同對敵之前，文明打的是一場只輸不贏的戰爭。當普通常識與基本原則成為人們的行動準則時，貧民窟才會消失。這兩者並不總是相提並論的，但此處他們顯然可劃歸一類。在理論上，公正對待個人被視為我們合眾國的唯一安全保障。在處理貧民窟問題上，若能如此實踐，貧民窟將很快消失。我們不必等待一個太平盛世，一千年後才去動手消除貧民窟，而是現在就可動手行動。所需要做的就是不能讓貧民窟自生自滅。這樣對貧民窟，對我們自己才有公正可言，因為令人揪心的是，貧民窟的癥結所在就是其本身無力自救。當一個人溺水時，所要做的就是先將他從水中拉出，以後要談論此事有的是時間。可我們處理社會問題卻本末倒置。聰明人自行其樂，對痛苦不堪者，不聞不問，放任自流。「物競天擇，適者生存」。有位「最不適者」卻生存下來，用他的話說，去探究「帶有社會性的原因」是有危險的。這種論調，看似科學，實為荒謬，它使洗耳恭聽的一代人為之付出昂貴的代價。「帶有社會性的原因」使政治流氓及其它種種惡棍有機可乘，他們從絕望墮落的貧民窟中大撈一把，也使悲觀論者找到了防空洞，與這幫人作鬥爭時，成為廢物。悲觀論者使我們付出代價，而且還未付完。我們總要伸出手，將那溺水者從水中拉出的。現在是時候了。再晚一點，我們恐怕將難逃被溺水者拖下水去而一道沈沒的危險。

    貧民窟問題是歷代的慢性病。可十九世紀目睹的各種巨大變化，新工業及政治自由使這一疾病惡性發作，並直接威脅到政治自由本身。我們當中太多人以為，我們合眾國是建立在普選制基礎之上，所以這足以證明我們沒有那些侵擾以往國家的問題。但事實上，這裏有意想不到的危險。我們曾莊嚴宣佈過，人人生而平等，人人擁有若幹不可剝奪的權利，其中包括生命權，自由權和追求幸福權。可宣佈後，我們卻閉上眼睛，期待著這一方案自行生效。這就好像一個患感冒的人將醫生的藥方帶上床，然後指望它會發生療效。宣言本身並沒有錯，可只是一再重 覆宣言解決不了任何問題。在宣言頒佈一百年之後的今天，我們睜眼看到的是：城市中的勞動婦女一天工錢只有六十美分，生產一打短褲才得四十美分，貧民墓地奪走城裏十分之一的人，每年有十分之一的人死於戰亂，這恰恰是貧民窟裏嬰兒的死亡率。我們的國家已經繁榮富強，源源不斷地通過我們港口的是足夠幾百萬歐洲人享用的食物。然而，在窮街陋巷裏，一堆堆目不識丁、缺吃少穿的人擠在一塊。外國壓迫者已被趕跑，國內黑人的鐵鐐已被打開，可處於水深火熱之中的白人兄弟正在發出痛苦的吶喊，吶喊聲帶有明顯的威脅性。我們贏得了政治自由，但貧困交加的問題並未解決，正在嘲弄我們，歐洲落魄者的加入又擴大了這一貧困化。一天六十美分的「自由」，我們的各個市政府很快都打上了這種印記，最終成了我們政治制度的醜聞和危險……

    不錯，我們工作緩慢。但儘管進展緩慢，這場戰役非打不可，而且要打到底，因為要麼我們消除貧民窟，要麼貧民窟將我們消滅，二者必居其一。對此不可有任何懷疑。這一問題不容迴避，迴避意味著投降，投降意味著民治政府的結束。

    假如有人以為這是小題大作，那麼不妨想想看：民治政府是基於智慧與公眾精神之上的，它有賴於人民有能力管理自己，而貧民窟代表的是愚昧、匱乏、醜陋、憤怒之時的暴亂。這些還只是一方面，另一方面是鐵石心腸、麻木不仁、自私自利、貪得無厭。人的本性不過如此。不管我們是否擁有兄弟情誼，我們本是兄弟同胞。假如不給紐約下東區桑樹街的人以兄弟情誼，我們要想在第五大道繁榮區找到善良公民的美德則是徒勞的。一方面，城裏的貧民窟自由發展，無人過問；另一方面，城邊碼頭仍然是一派繁忙景象，城裏的倉庫也愈添愈滿──財富與匱乏就是如此結伴相行──但人民心中的愛國熱情卻熄滅了。

    早在建國之初，共和國的締造者們就已經看到，城市是他們規劃中的危險之地。這裏潛伏著民主政府消亡的危機。建國之初，在美國，二十五人中只有一人生活在城市，而現在三人中就有一人生活在城市。除了商人的自私，如今又添上貧民窟的威脅。假如對貧民窟不聞不問，那麼試問：貧民窟將我們消滅之日會遠嗎?

    換句話說，當你需要人們以自由者身份給你選票時，你就不能讓他們像豬一般生活，因為這是一種危險的做法。你不能奪走一個小孩的童年，奪走他的家園，奪走他的玩樂，奪走他那無憂無苦的自由，而同時又指望他長大成人時具備男性選民的成熟。兒童是我們的未來。今天我們怎麼塑造他們，明天他們也將怎麼對付我們。因此，貧民窟沒有任何安全可言。最危險的事、最危險的行為莫過於對家庭的打擊，因為公民責任源 於家庭，而不是源於任何其他地方。貧民窟是家庭的仇敵。由於貧民窟的存在，我們國土上的主要城市早被稱為「無家可歸的城市」，當這個國家被真正稱為「無家可歸的國家時」，國將不國。

    有鑒於此，我認為，在與貧民窟的鬥爭中，我們要麼戰勝，要麼滅亡，沒有中間路可走。我們一定會勝利的，因為我們不會像祖輩那樣去維持現狀。但這將是一場持久戰，二年、十年、二十年都不夠。儘管如此，我們必須繼續戰鬥。假如，在我們的時代，能防止現在忘卻兄弟情誼的人的第三代和第四代遭受懲罰，我們也就心滿意足了。上帝的意旨是讓他的子孫有所收穫，如同人們對待兄弟一樣。上帝要讓我們用辛勤的淚水來領會概括於十誡中的教誨，只有這教誨才能使大地迎來未來的天國。

The slum is as old as civilization. Civilization implies a race to get ahead. In a race there are usually some who for one cause or another cannot keep up, or are thrust out from among their fellows. They fall behind, and when they have been left far in the rear they lose hope and ambition, and give up. Thenceforward, if left to their own resources, they are the victims, not the masters, of their environment; and it is a bad master. They drag one another always farther down. The bad environment becomes the heredity of the next generation. Then, given the crowd, you have the slum ready-made. The battle with the slum began the day civilization recognized in it her enemy. It was a losing fight until conscience joined forces with fear and self-interest against it. When common sense and the golden rule obtain among men as a rule of practice, it will be over. The two have not always been classed together, but here they are plainly seen to belong together. Justice to the individual is accepted in theory as the only safe groundwork of the commonwealth. When it is practised in dealing with the slum, there will shortly be no slum. We need not wait for the millennium, to get rid of it. We can do it now. All that is required is that it shall not be left to itself. That is justice to it and to us, since its grievous ailment is that it cannot help itself. When a man is drowning, the thing to do is to pull him out of the water; afterward there will be time for talking it over. We got at it the other way in dealing with our social problems. The wise men had their day, and they decided to let bad enough alone; that it was unsafe to interfere with "causes that operate sociologically," as one survivor of these unfittest put it to me. It was a piece of scientific humbug that cost the age which listened to it dear. "Causes that operate sociologically" are the opportunity of the political and every other kind of scamp who trades upon the depravity and helplessness of the slum, and the refuge of the pessimist who is useless in the fight against them. We have not done yet paying the bills he ran up for us. Some time since we turned to, to pull the drowning man out, and it was time. A little while longer, and we should hardly have escaped being dragged down with him.

      The slum complaint had been chronic in all ages, but the great changes which the nineteenth century saw, the new industry, political freedom, brought on an acute attack which put that very freedom in jeopardy. Too many of us had supposed that, built as our commonwealth was on universal suffrage, it would be proof against the complaints that harassed older states; but in fact it turned out that there was extra hazard in that. Having solemnly resolved that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we shut our eyes and waited for the formula to work. It was as if a man with a cold should take the doctor's prescription to bed with him, expecting it to cure him. The formula was all right, but merely repeating it worked no cure. When, after a hundred years, we opened our eyes, it was upon sixty cents a day as the living wage of the working-woman in our cities; upon "knee pants" at forty cents a dozen for the making; upon the Potter's Field taking tithe of our city life, ten per cent each year for the trench, truly the Lost Tenth of the slum. Our country had grown great and rich; through our ports was poured food for the millions of Europe. But in the back streets multitudes huddled in ignorance and want. The foreign oppressor had been vanquished, the fetters stricken from the black man at home; but his white brother, in his bitter plight, sent up a cry of distress that had in it a distinct note of menace. Political freedom we had won; but the problem of helpless poverty, grown vast with the added offscourings of the Old World, mocked us, unsolved. Liberty at sixty cents a day set presently its stamp upon the government of our cities, and it became the scandal and the peril of our political system. . . ,

      Slow work, yes! but be it ever so slow, the battle has got to be fought, and fought out. For it is one thing or the other: either wipe out the slum, or it wipes out us. Let there be no mistake about this. It cannot be shirked. Shirking means surrender, and surrender means the end of government by the people.

      If any one believes this to be needless alarm, let him think a moment. Government by the people must ever rest upon the people's ability to govern themselves, upon their intelligence and public spirit. The slum stands for ignorance, want, unfitness, for mob-rule in the day of wrath. This at one end. At the other, hard-heartedness, indifference, self-seeking, greed. It is human nature. We are brothers whether we own it or not, and when the brotherhood is denied in Mulberry Street we shall look vainly for the virtue of good citizenship on Fifth Avenue. When the slum flourishes unchallenged in the cities, their wharves may, indeed, be busy, their treasure houses filled－wealth and want go so together, －but patriotism among their people is dead.

      As long ago as the very beginning of our republic, its founders saw that the cities were danger-spots in their plan. In them was the peril of democratic government. At that time, scarce one in twenty-five of the people in the United States lived in a city. Now it is one in three. And to the selfishness of the trader has been added the threat of the slum. Ask yourself then how long before it would make an end of us, if let alone.

      Put it this way: you cannot let men live like pigs when you need their votes as freemen; it is not safe. You cannot rob a child of its childhood, of its home, its play, its freedom from toil and care, and expect to appeal to the grown-up voter's manhood. The children are our to-morrow, and as we mould them to-day so will they deal with us then. Therefore that is not safe. Unsafest of all is any thing or deed that strikes at the home, for from the people's home proceeds citizen virtue, and nowhere else does it live. The slum is the enemy of the home. Because of it the chief city of our land came long ago to be called "The Homeless City." When this people comes to be truly called a nation without homes there will no longer be any nation.

      Hence, I say, in the battle with the slum we win or we perish. There is no middle way. We shall win, for we are not letting things be the way our fathers did. But it will be a running fight, and it is not going to be won in two years, or in ten, or in twenty. For all that, we must keep on fighting, content if in our time we avert the punishment that waits upon the third and the fourth generation of those who forget the brotherhood. As a man does in dealing with his brother so it is the way of God that his children shall reap, that through toil and tears we may make out the lesson which sums up all the commandments and alone can make the earth fit for the kingdom that is to come.