英美身份认同的差异

Earlier this year, I was chatting with Richard Haass, the esteemed head of the US’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), when I casually asked him how I could become a member. After all, I have spent much of my life travelling around the globe and love participating in international debates of the type that the CFR think-tank stages so well.

今年早些时候，我与美国对外关系委员会（Council On Foreign Relations，简称CFR）受人尊敬的会长理查德·哈斯(Richard Haass)聊天，我无意中问到该如何成为委员会中的一名成员。毕竟我大量时间都在环游世界，也喜欢参与CFR的智囊团精心筹办的国际讨论。

The answer from Haass, however, was politely firm – and negative. “You can’t join, since you’re not American, he observed. Never mind that the CFR prides itself on promoting international dialogue, or makes a point of welcoming journalists. Since the CFR was founded nine decades ago, its rules have insisted that “membership and term membership is restricted to US citizens (native-born or naturalised) and permanent residents who have applied to become citizens. Someone like me, who has been living in New York as a British citizen on a work visa, does not qualify. To attend a CFR debate, I must be invited by a “proper American citizen.

然而，哈斯委婉而又确切地给出了否定的答复。他说：“你不能加入，因为你不是美国人。尽管CFR以推动国际对话为荣，也特别欢迎记者，但由于CFR是90年前创建的，其规则一直都是“只有美国公民（土生土长或已入美国籍的）或者已经申请加入国籍的永久居民，才能获得成员资格或者有期限的成员资格。而像我这样只有工作签证在纽约生活的英国人，是没有资格加入的。要参加CFR的讨论，我必须获得一个“合适的美国公民的邀请。

It is a thought-provoking little cultural wrinkle, particularly in a week when Britain has just appointed Mark Carney, a Canadian citizen, to serve as governor of its central bank. As it happens, I don’t have any objection to being (politely) excluded from the hallowed ranks of CFR membership. CFR friends invite me to events and any society has a right to set its own rules.

这是一个发人深思的文化问题，特别是在英国刚刚任命加拿大人马克·卡尼(Mark Carney)为央行行长的背景下。既然是这样，对于被（礼貌地）拒绝成为CFR“神圣的一员，我也没有什么异议。CFR的朋友会邀请我参加一些活动。任何组织都有权制定自己的规则。

But it is notable that in London the nearest equivalent to the CFR think-tank – namely Chatham House – does not impose a citizenship requirement in its rules. On the contrary, it accepts anybody solvent enough to pay their dues, and earnest enough to attend meetings to discuss international issues. Indeed, a Chatham House spokesman says it “would completely go against the grain to even consider the issue of citizenship when granting membership; to them, the idea seems laughably bizarre.

但我们也可以看到，与CFR有着同等知名度的英国皇家国际事务研究所(Chatham House)，却并没有规定成员必须具备公民身份。相反，任何人只要能够缴纳会费并且认真出席会议来讨论国际问题，都可以加入。事实上，该研究所的一位发言人还说，在授予会员资格时，即使只是考虑一下公民资格的问题都是“完全违背常理的，因为对他们来说，这种想法可笑而又奇怪。

More striking still, many British government offices are almost as blasé about nationality. This week, global financial circles are abuzz about Carney. But while he is the first “foreigner to run the Bank, his arrival is not out of place: there are plenty of non-British nationals holding positions of varying levels of seniority in institutions such as the Bank of England, the UK Debt Management Office and the Financial Services Authority. Indeed, one British representative to the IMF is not British at all. And if you go into any large “British company today, you will find lots of non-British citizens, many of whom are operating at a senior level.

更令人惊奇的是，就连很多英国政府部门也对国籍问题毫不在乎。本周，全球金融界都对卡尼议论纷纷。尽管他是英国第一个“外籍央行行长，但他的出现并不突兀：英国一些高级机构中有很多非英国公民担任着各个级别的职务，比如说英国央行、英国债务管理办公室(UK Debt Management Office)和英国金融服务管理局(Financial Services Authority)。甚至英国派往国际货币基金组织(IMF)的一位代表根本都不是英国人。今天，在任何大型“英国公司，都会有很多非英国人的身影，他们中的很多人还担任高级职位。

In the US it is notably different. To be sure, there are non-Americans working in senior private sector roles. But not in government. American civil service rules specifically state that “only United States citizens and nationals (residents of American Samoa and Swains Island) may compete for, and be appointed to, competitive service jobs. And although “with Office of Personnel Management approval, agencies are permitted to hire non-citizens when there are no qualified citizens available, such people “may only be given an excepted appointment. A few non-Americans might slip into government roles, mostly as advisers, but these are rare. And when it comes to the highest positions of all – namely president and vice- president – the posts can only be held by citizens born on US soil, not naturalised. Hence the endless rumours around whether Barack Obama was really born in the US.

但在美国显然就不同了。可以肯定的是，在私人领域，确实有一些非美国人担任着高级职位。但这并不包括政府。美国公务员法特别规定，“只有美国公民和国民（美属萨摩亚和斯温斯岛的居民）才能参与竞争上岗的政府公职的竞选并担任这样的职务。尽管“在人力资源管理办公室(Office of Personnel Management)的批准下，如果没有合格的公民，政府机构也可以雇用非美国公民，但这类人“只能获得编外任命。一些非美国人可能会偶然在政府任职（大部分都是顾问），但这毕竟是极少数。至于最高的总统和副总统职位，则只能由土生土长的美国人担任，后来入籍的美国公民也不行。因此，关于巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)是否是真正土生土长的美国人，一直存在各种传闻。

What explains this difference in attitudes? Some American friends of mine – such as the CFR’s Haass – point to the fact that the US is an immigrant nation, and thus its citizens are far more diverse in origin than in Europe. Others might point to the fact that America is a “creedal nation (ie a nation based on a constitutional creed, not shared history of ethnicity). There is also the legacy of cold war fears about a “foreign (ie communist) infiltration.

那么，如何才能解释这种态度上的差异呢？我的一些美国朋友，比如CFR的哈斯，指出美国是个移民国家，因此其公民来源要比欧洲更加多样化。还有人可能会说美国是一个“信条国家（即一个基于宪法信条的国家，而不是有一个共同的民族历史。）同时，还存在冷战留下来的思维，即担忧“外国渗透（比如共产主义）。

. . .

. . .

However, the other point that stands out – at least if you have lived in both places – is the oddly slippery nature of “belonging in modern Britain. In the US, the concept of citizenship is perceived in binary terms: you are either in or out of the group. In Britain, there is no single line: identity is multilayered, defined in both concentric and overlapping circles. Nationality is not black and white (let alone red, white and blue), but often rather grey.

然而，还有一点非常明显的就是（至少如果你在英美两个国家都生活过的话就能感受到），现代英国令人难以捉摸的奇怪“归属感。在美国，公民的理念就是一种“二元感知：要么是公民要么就不是公民。而在英国是没有单一的分界线的：身份是多层次的，既可以通过相互独立的圈子、也可以通过相互叠加的圈子来定义。国籍不是非黑即白（更不是红、白、蓝），而往往是灰色的。

This unusual level of ambiguity partly reflects Britain’s imperial past, when London was a global crossroads and millions in the Empire were partly-but-not-totally British. However, it has been reinforced by the creation of the European Union: these days anyone with an EU passport can work in the UK – and in British government jobs. Thus while rural Britain is still fairly homogenous, many parts of London now feel markedly – and surprisingly – more diverse than even the self-styled melting pot of America.

这种不同寻常的模糊性反映了英国的殖民历史，过去伦敦曾是世界的中心，整个大英帝国中有数百万人都只是“部分的英国人而不是“纯粹的英国人。然而，欧盟(EU)的创立则强化了这种感受：如今任何人只要有欧盟护照都可以在英国工作，甚至是担任英国政府的工作。因此，尽管英国乡村地区依然有着较高的同源性，伦敦很多地方现在却给人明显而又惊人的更加多元化的感觉，甚至超越了自诩为大熔炉的美国。

In pointing out this distinction, I am certainly not making any moral judgment about which pattern is better or worse. Both Britain and America have challenges with racism and intolerance, albeit of a different nature. But if nothing else, it would be fascinating to stage a debate among America’s leaders today about whether they could imagine a foreigner ever running the Federal Reserve – and if not, why that idea would seem so utterly taboo. Who knows? Maybe the mighty CFR could even organise that discussion – and invite all those non-Americans (such as me) along as “guests to listen.

指出这一区别，我当然不是想评价哪种模式更好或者更差。英国和美国都面临着种族主义和缺乏容忍度的问题，尽管它们有着不同的性质。不过，在美国领导人中展开一场辩论，讨论一下他们能否想象一个外国人来领导美联储(Federal Reserve)，或许会非常有趣。如果答案是否定的，那么为什么这种想法似乎就是一种禁忌呢？谁知道呢？或许强大的CFR就可以组织这样的讨论，并且邀请所有非美国人（比如说我）来“旁听。