本書章節(jié)概要

第一章“挪用基督教傳統(tǒng)”首先探討對于英國社會及動保運(yùn)動影響至深的基督教傳統(tǒng)。本章跳脫傳統(tǒng)觀念史的做法，不著眼于主要神學(xué)家和經(jīng)典文本，而是轉(zhuǎn)向由動保運(yùn)動中的平信徒和神職人員構(gòu)成的詮釋社群，呈現(xiàn)基督教信仰如何成為運(yùn)動中大多數(shù)人身份認(rèn)同、論述理據(jù)和道德動力的關(guān)鍵來源。通過挪用基督教的核心神學(xué)概念，如創(chuàng)造論、人類對動物的統(tǒng)治權(quán)柄、上帝的仁慈和基督的自我犧牲精神，以及利用存在于更廣泛社會爭議中的反科學(xué)論述，動保運(yùn)動者不僅將基督教轉(zhuǎn)化為推進(jìn)運(yùn)動的核心動力，更在19世紀(jì)英國開創(chuàng)出一個(gè)正向而鮮明的人道對待動物的基督教“次傳統(tǒng)”（sub-tradition），并在改善動物處境、提升動物地位方面，使其發(fā)揮了核心的促進(jìn)作用。

第二章“挪用政治傳統(tǒng)”探討了動保運(yùn)動與激進(jìn)政治運(yùn)動間的關(guān)聯(lián)。本章首先指出，19世紀(jì)的主要激進(jìn)政治運(yùn)動，包括社會主義運(yùn)動和現(xiàn)世主義運(yùn)動，在反虐待動物及反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)議題上并不存在共識。然而，在進(jìn)步浪潮交織匯流的19世紀(jì)末，許多具有激進(jìn)思想的反基督教人士、社會主義者和爭取選舉權(quán)的女性運(yùn)動者紛紛加入了動保運(yùn)動，并自激進(jìn)政治傳統(tǒng)中挪用了各類概念、修辭形式、批判論述，以及策略等。譬如，他們堅(jiān)守“人道主義”和“動物權(quán)”的一貫原則，以反對主流運(yùn)動中互相矛盾和充斥社會偏見的保守意識形態(tài)；刻意使用“正義”和“權(quán)利”等較為激進(jìn)的政治概念和語匯，以彌補(bǔ)“憐憫”和“仁慈”等宗教式用語的不足；拓展運(yùn)動關(guān)注議題，如檢討狩獵活動、動物表演、動物園和肉食行為。受到19世紀(jì)末其他激進(jìn)運(yùn)動日益大膽的運(yùn)動策略啟發(fā)，部分團(tuán)體亦訴諸秘密調(diào)查、媒體曝光、大型海報(bào)展示、店面宣傳和戶外示威游行等有別于過往策略的高調(diào)行動。運(yùn)動的激進(jìn)派通過廣泛挪用激進(jìn)政治傳統(tǒng)各層面的資源，不僅使運(yùn)動整體在意識形態(tài)、目標(biāo)和策略方面逐漸激進(jìn)化，亦在基督教道德改革傳統(tǒng)整體于社會中漸行衰退后，趕搭上新時(shí)代之列車，延續(xù)發(fā)展，邁入動保運(yùn)動的第二個(gè)百年。

第三章“挪用自然史傳統(tǒng)”探討了動保運(yùn)動對大眾自然史傳統(tǒng)的參與和挪用。大約從19世紀(jì)40年代起，自然史文化日漸受到維多利亞社會大眾的歡迎，廣泛成為人們休閑娛樂、靈性提升、自我教育、道德教化或宣教等活動的最佳素材。本章指出，在運(yùn)動者同樣積極的挪用下——包括扮演自然史的提倡者、教育者、評論者、出版者和推廣者等一系列角色，大眾自然史傳統(tǒng)不僅為運(yùn)動提供了豐富的知識資源，促進(jìn)了大眾對動物的正確理解和態(tài)度，也賦予了運(yùn)動重要的思想和道德資源，強(qiáng)化了主流運(yùn)動的核心意識形態(tài)和倫理觀。最終，運(yùn)動所從事的自然史挪用工作，更于19世紀(jì)后期推動了一種有利于運(yùn)動整體目標(biāo)、關(guān)注倫理和人道精神的自然史次傳統(tǒng)，為19世紀(jì)人與動物關(guān)系的文化改造工程作出了貢獻(xiàn)。

第四章“挪用演化論傳統(tǒng)”指出，盡管現(xiàn)代動保運(yùn)動者大多熱情推崇達(dá)爾文的演化論，深信它在提升動物地位方面的革命性影響力，但是在19世紀(jì)時(shí)，運(yùn)動對演化論思想的挪用既非必然，過程亦迂回曲折。不少因素令運(yùn)動者在考慮挪用演化論思想時(shí)卻步，因其對運(yùn)動的部分固有基督教信念產(chǎn)生了抵觸。此外，達(dá)爾文主義與“適者生存”一說的緊密聯(lián)系、支持動物實(shí)驗(yàn)的科學(xué)家對演化論思想的挪用，以及達(dá)爾文本人對動物實(shí)驗(yàn)的支持等，皆使運(yùn)動者多有顧忌，難以熱切擁抱演化論。直到19世紀(jì)末，當(dāng)運(yùn)動內(nèi)外宗教信仰與科學(xué)理性之間的緊張關(guān)系逐漸得到調(diào)和，加上20世紀(jì)早期達(dá)爾文主義的式微使各式各樣的演化理論有了發(fā)展空間，才有越來越多的運(yùn)動群體樂于采納演化論傳統(tǒng)。透過一番積極詮釋、挪用與傳播，運(yùn)動終而將其轉(zhuǎn)化成為形塑運(yùn)動多元愿景的一項(xiàng)關(guān)鍵思想要素。

第五章“挪用文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)”探討動物保護(hù)運(yùn)動向來所宣稱的，它與文學(xué)領(lǐng)域之間存在的親近關(guān)系。18世紀(jì)大量出版的富有人道主義同情的文學(xué)作品、反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)運(yùn)動所廣泛采取的文學(xué)與科學(xué)對立的二元論述框架，以及眾多改革者對情感的深切訴求，都促成了運(yùn)動對文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)的高度認(rèn)同。動保運(yùn)動者通過參與一系列的文學(xué)工作，如文學(xué)評論、文學(xué)批判、編輯人道教育選集、征集作家支持、直接寫作等，使得文學(xué)傳統(tǒng)為動保事業(yè)所用，促其成為運(yùn)動所不可或缺的道德、智識和文化資源寶庫，尤其在大眾識字率日漸上升和大眾出版日益發(fā)達(dá)的19世紀(jì)70年代后，其角色日益重要。

結(jié)語部分總結(jié)了英國第一場動物保護(hù)運(yùn)動在人與動物關(guān)系方面帶來的制度、立法和文化成果。它同時(shí)反思，一項(xiàng)著眼于運(yùn)動者的能動性、運(yùn)動作為社會傳統(tǒng)的中介角色和創(chuàng)造性主體的研究，對未來人與動物關(guān)系倫理愿景的開展與實(shí)現(xiàn)之推動，能夠具有何等價(jià)值。

注釋

[1]在此之前有動保團(tuán)體成立，但皆因難以維系而歷時(shí)不久。

[2]參見Dix Harwood, “The Love for Animals and How It Developed in Great Britain,”PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, 1928; Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500—1800 (London: Penguin, 1984)。

[3]參見John Berger, “Why Look at Animals,” in About Looking (New York: Vintage,1991 [1977])(文章最初出版于New Society, Mar.& Apr.1977); Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500—1800, pp.173—191; James Turner, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980); B. Harrison, Peaceable Kingdom (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), pp.82—122; Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp.125—166;段義孚（Yi-Fu Tuan）：《制造寵物：支配與感情》（Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984); Kete Kathleen, The Beast in the Boudoir: Pet-Keeping in Nineteenth-Century Paris (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Richard W. Bulliet, Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005)。關(guān)于對結(jié)構(gòu)解釋的批評，參見Adrian Franklin, Animals & Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity (London: Sage, 1999), pp.9—33。

[4]此為該書中有關(guān)反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)運(yùn)動的三個(gè)章節(jié)的主標(biāo)題。

[5]Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp.374, 386.

[6]James Turner, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind, pp.33, 54, 67, 77.針對此觀點(diǎn)的類似批判，參見Keith Thomas, “The Beast in Man,” The New York Review of Books, Apr.30, 1981。

[7]C. Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp.127—128.

[8]C. Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England, pp.24—25, 187—188.

[9]這一解釋從運(yùn)動的結(jié)構(gòu)條件和智識起源出發(fā)，并假定這些因素對運(yùn)動有著即時(shí)和固定的影響。參見Diane L. Beers, For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2006); Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500—1800。

[10]正如法蘭奇在《維多利亞社會的反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)運(yùn)動和醫(yī)學(xué)》論及反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)運(yùn)動時(shí)所言：“將‘動物權(quán)’或‘動物的永生’那些所謂抽象的哲學(xué)和神學(xué)說法，視為對寵物的愛的延伸產(chǎn)物，遠(yuǎn)比視其為運(yùn)動全然理性的智識基礎(chǔ)更為合理。”（第375頁）

[11]參見James Turner, Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind; C. Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England; Keith Tester, Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights (London: Routledge, 1991)。博迪斯同樣貶低運(yùn)動參與者對動物的真心關(guān)注，指運(yùn)動者其實(shí)是“別有用心，卻以動保主張作為手段”（344），參見Rob Boddice, A History of Attitudes and Behaviours Towards Animals in Eighteenth-and Nineteenth-Century Britain: Anthropocentrism and the Emergence of Animals(Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008)。

[12]Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics. Vol. I Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

[13]參見Roger Chartier, “Intellectual History or Sociocultural History?” in Dominick LaCapra and Steven L. Kaplan eds., Modern European Intellectual History: Reappraisals & New Perspectives (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp.13—46; Roger Chartier,“Culture as Appropriation: Popular Cultural Uses in Early Modern France,” in Steven L. Kaplan ed., Understanding Popular Culture: Europe from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century (New York: Mouton, 1984), pp.229—253; Roger Chartier, Forms and Meanings: Texts, Performances, and Audiences from Codex to Computer(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995); Haydn Mason ed., The Darnton Debate: Books and Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,1998)。

[14]有關(guān)此發(fā)展的文獻(xiàn)數(shù)量眾多，各年代學(xué)者的部分代表作可參見Gareth Stedman Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History 1832—1982(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Eugenio F. Biagini and Alastair Reid eds., Currents of Radicalism: Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour, and Party Politics in Britain, 1850—1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); David Craig and James Thompson eds., Languages of Politics in Nineteenth-Century Britain(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)。

[15]關(guān)于語言轉(zhuǎn)向之后的史學(xué)發(fā)展的更詳細(xì)說明，參見Gabrielle M. Spiegel ed., Practicing History: New Directions in Historical Writing After the Linguistic Turn(London: Routledge, 2005), pp.1—31。

[16]由于相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)眾多，未能在此一一列出。關(guān)于社會運(yùn)動理論發(fā)展的簡要回顧，可參見Stephen M. Engel, “A Survey of Social Movement Theories,” in The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and Gay and Lesbian Movement, 167—186(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)以及A. D. Morris and C. Mueller eds., Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992); Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans eds., Social Movements and Culture (London: UCL Press, 1995); D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999)。

[17]Hilda Kean, Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain Since 1800 (London: Reaktion Books, 1998).另參見Richard D. Ryder, Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp.81—165。

[18]關(guān)于動保運(yùn)動的性別化論述，參見Mary Ann Elston, “Women and Anti-Vivisection in Victorian England, 1870—1900,” in N. A. Nupke ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987), pp.159—294; Diana Donald, Women Against Cruelty: Animal Protection in Nineteenth-century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019)。關(guān)于素食主義運(yùn)動，參見Tristram Stuart, The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism from 1600 to Modern Times (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007); James Gregory, Of Victorians and Vegetarians: The Vegetarian Movement in Nineteenth-Century Britain (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007)。關(guān)于表演動物的狀況，參見Helen Cowie, Exhibiting Animals in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Empathy, Education, Entertainment (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); David A. H. Wilson, The Welfare of Performing Animals: A Historical Perspective (Berlin: Springer, 2015)。關(guān)于反狩獵運(yùn)動，參見Philip Windeatt, The Hunt and the Anti-hunt (London: Pluto, 1982); R. H. Thomas, The Politics of Hunting (Aldershot: Gower, 1983); Allyson N. May, The Fox-Hunting Controversy, 1781—2004 (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2013); Michael Tichelar, The History of Opposition to Blood Sports in Twentieth Century England: Hunting at Bay (London: Routledge, 2017)。關(guān)于反動物實(shí)驗(yàn)運(yùn)動，參見N. A. Rupke ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987); A. W. H. Bates, Anti-Vivisection and the Profession of Medicine in Britain: A Social History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017)以及本書第二章提及的其他著作。關(guān)于有組織的動保運(yùn)動興起之前的早期倡議階段，參見Kathryn Shevelow, For the Love of Animals: The Rise of Animal Protection Movement (New York: Henry Holt, 2008); Tobias Menely, The Animal Claim: Sensibility and the Creaturely Voice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015)。關(guān)于屠宰場改革，參見Chris Otter, “Civilizing Slaughter: The Development of the British Public Abattoir, 1850—1910,” in Paula Young Lee ed., Meat, Modernity, and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse (Durham: University of New Hampshire Press, 2008), pp.89—126。限于篇幅，此處不羅列涉及19世紀(jì)英國人類與其他動物之關(guān)系的著作，僅涵蓋與動保運(yùn)動相關(guān)之著作。

[19]Emma Griffin, “Bull-Baiting in Industrialising Townships, 1800—1850,” in Martin Hewitt ed., Unrespectable Recreations (Leeds: Leeds Centre for Victorian Studies,2001), pp.19—30; Emma Griffin, England’s Revelry: A History of Popular Sports and Pastimes, 1660—1830 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).另參見Robert W. Malcolm, Popular Recreations in English Society 1700—1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)。

[20]參見N. A. Rupke ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987); E. M. Tansey, “Protection Against Dog Distemper and Dogs Protection Bills: The Medical Research Council and Anti-Vivisectionist Protest, 1911—1933,” Medical History, 38, no.1 (1994), pp.1—26; David Allan Feller, “Dog Fight: Darwin as Animal Advocate in the Antivivisection Controversy of 1875,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40, no.4 (2009), pp.265—271; Mark Willis, “Unmasking Immorality: Popular Opposition to Laboratory Science in Late Victorian Britain,” in D. Clifford and E. Wadge eds., Repositioning Victorian Sciences: Shifting Centres in Nineteenth-Century Scientific Thinking (London: Anthem Press,2006), pp.207—250。

[21]Paul White, “Sympathy Under the Knife: Experimentation and Emotion in Late-Victorian Medicine,” in Bound Alberti ed., Medicine, Emotion, and Disease, 1700—1950 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), pp.100—124; Paul White, “Darwin’s Emotions: The Scientific Self and the Sentiment of Objectivity,” Isis, 100, no.4(2009), pp.811—826; Paul White, “Darwin Wept: Science and the Sentimental Subject,” Journal of Victorian Culture, 16, no.2 (2011), pp.195—213; Rob Boddice,“Vivisecting Major: A Victorian Gentleman Scientist Defends Animal Experimentation,1876—1885,” Isis, 102 (2011), pp.215—237; Rob Boddice, The Science of Sympathy: Morality, Evolution, and Victorian Civilization (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2016).

[22]Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age, pp.125—166.而專注于性別和國族等分析角度亦有可能阻礙對動保事業(yè)的正確理解，相關(guān)例子可參見Moria Ferguson, Animal Advocacy and Englishwomen,1780—1900 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998)。

[23]Donna Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (London: Routledge, 1991), p.21.

[24]關(guān)于動物在19世紀(jì)英國城市中之無處不在，并如何沖擊過往社會經(jīng)濟(jì)角度對運(yùn)動興起之解釋，可參見本書第四章。19世紀(jì)英國社會和文化史研究亦開始更多地觀察到動物所扮演的舉足輕重之角色，相關(guān)研究可參見Ann C. Colley, Wild Animal Skins in Victorian Britain: Zoos, Collections, Portraits, and Maps (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2014); Helen Cowie, Exhibiting Animals in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Empathy, Education, Entertainment (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Nicholas Daly, The Demographic Imagination and the Nineteenth-Century City: Paris, London, New York (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Hilda Kean and Philip Howell eds., The Routledge Companion to Animal-Human History (London: Routledge, 2018); Philip Howell, At Home and Astray: The Domestic Dog in Victorian Britain (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2015); Deborah Denenholz Morse and Martin A. Danahay eds. Victorian Animal Dreams: Representations of Animals in Victorian Literature and Culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); John Simons, The Tiger That Swallowed the Boy: Exotic Animals in Victorian England (Faringdon: Libri, 2012); Hannah Velten, Beastly London: A History of Animals in the City (London: Reaktion, 2013)。

[25]本書將重點(diǎn)放在“傳統(tǒng)”而非單純的語言、思想或文本的取徑，亦受惠于Mark Bevir, The Making of British Socialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011),pp.3—16。

---

(1)　簡體中文版的本節(jié)相比英文原版有一定程度改寫。