情商2：影响你一生的社交商（第3版）

这是一个寒冷的12月的一天，尊敬的詹姆斯·帕克斯·莫顿先生——纽约主教座堂的前任教长，宗教中心的负责人，给他的员工带来了一个坏消息。他们最大的捐资人已经停止了捐赠，中心已经无法继续支付房租了。因此，他们很快就要无家可归了。

在圣诞节即将来临的前几天，情况出现了不可思议的转机。来自塞内加尔的移民沙伊赫·穆萨·戴姆听说了他们的困境，主动提出在自己即将开设日托中心的大楼里为他们提供工作场所。

就这样，戴姆挽救了这个各种宗教信仰的人们共同努力工作的中心，莫顿认为这一行为正体现了该中心的宗旨。就像戴姆所说的那样：“我们对彼此越是了解，就越乐意坐下来一起喝一杯，发生流血冲突的可能性就越小。”^[27]

但是怎样才能平复已经发生过流血冲突的民族之间的仇恨呢？毕竟，种族间在经历过暴力冲突之后，他们的歧视和仇恨会不可避免地增强。

在敌对状态结束后，发展彼此间的和谐关系对群体中的个人也有一定影响。其中之一是生理影响，因为长时间的憎恶和怨恨会对人们的生理产生一定的影响。研究发现，只要人们想起他们所憎恨的群体，他们的体内就会引发愤怒的情绪，从而产生大量压力荷尔蒙，提升他们的血压并且降低他们的免疫功能。这种无声的愤怒越强烈、越频繁，它所带来的生理影响就越强烈。^[28]

解决这一问题的方法之一就是宽恕。宽恕我们所怨恨的人可以在我们体内引发相反的生理反应，它可以平衡我们的血压、心率和压力荷尔蒙的水平，还会减轻我们的痛苦与抑郁。^[29]

宽恕还有一定的社交意义，比如它会使原来的敌人变成朋友。但是我们并不一定要马上与自己原来的敌人成为朋友，特别是刚刚经历过伤害之后。宽恕并不一定意味着原谅别人的罪行，或者忘记自己所受的伤害，或者向伤害自己的人妥协，而是想办法使自己从痛苦中解脱出来。

心理学家用了一个星期的时间指导17位来自北爱尔兰的男性和女性进行宽恕训练。他们都是天主教徒或者新教徒，都因为宗教冲突而失去了亲人。在这一个星期中，他们讲述了自己的冤屈和不满，然后心理学家帮助他们从新的角度来看待已经发生的悲剧。心理学家引导他们不再停留在痛苦的回忆中，而是以自己更加美好的未来告慰亲人。甚至有许多人打算帮助别人进行同样的宽恕训练。训练过后，大家不仅感觉自己的情感创伤得到了抚慰，而且发现自己的身体创伤，比如胃口不好和失眠等情况也都有了好转。^[30]

宽恕，但不能遗忘，至少不能全部遗忘。暴行中也有人们应当永世不忘的教训。就像拉比·劳伦斯·库什纳评论纳粹大屠杀时所说的那样：“我想记住它的暴虐，仅仅是为了确保这种事情永远不会再发生在我或者其他任何人的身上。”^[31]

库什纳说，从“一个疯狂政权的牺牲品”中得到惨痛教训之后，对这种回忆最好的纪念就是去帮助那些现在仍然面临种族屠杀危险的人们。

卢旺达流行的广播肥皂剧《新曙光》的创作意图也正是如此。这出肥皂剧的场景设定在现代，描述了两个贫瘠的村庄为了争夺位于它们中间的一块肥沃土地而导致冲突不断升级。

它的故事情节有些类似于《罗密欧与朱丽叶》。年轻姑娘巴塔丽亚喜欢上了邻村的小伙子施玛，而她的哥哥鲁纳格雷领导着村里的一个小集团，他竭力煽动大家对邻村的仇恨，以便对他们发起攻击。他还强迫巴塔丽亚嫁给自己的一个亲信。但是巴塔丽亚所属的小团体对两个村庄都非常友好。巴塔丽亚和她的朋友们竭尽全力来与挑衅者对抗，比如向邻村预先泄露挑衅者的攻击目标，公开反驳这些挑衅者等。

《新曙光》的宗旨就是培养人们抵制仇恨的能力，它是由荷兰慈善家和美国心理学家共同推动的一个项目。^[32] “我们帮助人们了解大屠杀的起因，以及如何才能使这些悲剧永远不再发生。”马萨诸塞州大学阿默斯特校区的心理学家、该项目的策划者之一欧文·斯托布如是说。

斯托布对于大屠杀的了解部分是通过研究，部分是通过自己的亲身经历。他本人就是当年被瑞典大使拉乌尔·瓦伦堡从纳粹魔爪下解救出来的成千上万名匈牙利犹太人之一，当时他还是个孩子。

斯托布在他的著作《罪恶之源》（The Roots of Evil ）一书中总结了引发这种大规模种族屠杀的心理因素。^[33]它一般都发生在剧烈的社会动荡之后，比如经济危机和政治动荡等，当地一般都有着强势与弱势群体的长期对立。动乱会使得强势群体的人们把弱势群体的人们当作替罪羊，认为他们就是引发问题的根源，是他们妨碍了自己美好的未来。如果强势群体的人们过去曾经遭到迫害，并且现在仍然感觉受到不公平待遇，那么这种仇恨更容易在他们中间传播。他们的安全感已经丧失，当双方冲突升级时，他们就会认为必须诉诸武力来保卫自己，哪怕这种“自卫”的形式就是对弱势群体的大屠杀。

还有几个因素很容易引发这种暴行，比如弱势群体在政治上没有发言权，旁观者——那些本可以反对暴行的人们或者相邻国家的人——保持沉默等。“如果在暴徒刚刚开始侵害受害者时旁观者一言不发，暴徒就会把这种沉默理解为默许。”斯托布说，“而且人们一旦开始了这种暴行，他们渐渐地就会把对他人的迫害看作道德允许的行为。这时已经没有什么力量可以使他们回头了。”

斯托布和心理学家劳里·安妮·珀尔曼（Laurie Anne Pearlman）一直致力于向卢旺达的政治家团体、记者和社团领导传播这些思想和仇恨的排解方法。^[34] “我们请他们用这些思想来分析自己的经历，这种方式很有效。我们正在努力推广团体疗法并且建立有效机制来抵制暴虐势力。”

他们的研究表明，要打破“我们和它们”的界限仅仅靠亲密的情感交流和友谊是不够的。斯托布发现，如果实施过暴虐行为的人不承认自己的暴行，不忏悔，也不对幸存者表示道歉，那么宽恕也是没有用的。这种单方面的宽恕只能加剧双方的不平衡。

斯托布还对宽恕与和解做了区分。和解的意思是用诚实客观的态度来反思暴行，并且努力补偿，就像在取消种族隔离政策后南非真相与调解委员会所做的工作一样。和解意味着犯下暴行的一方承认自己的罪行，双方都用冷静客观的态度来重新审视对方，这样双方才能够一起开始新生活。

1. The Afrikaaner and Anne were witnessed by Peter Senge and recounted in Peter Senge et al.,Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future (Cambridge, Mass.: Society for OrganizationalLearning, 2004).
2. On Us-Them, see Walter Kaufmann, prologue to Martin Buber, I and Thou (1937; New York:Simon and Schuster, 1990), p. 13.
3. On similarity and shocks, see, for example, Dennis Krebs, “Empathy and Altruism; AnExamination of the Concept and a Review of the Literature,” Psychological Bulletin 73 (1970), pp.258–302; C. Daniel Batson, The Altruism Question: Toward a Scientific Answer (Hillsdale, N.J.:Erlbaum, 1991).
4. Elie Weisel made these remarks at the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. SeeJerusalem Post, January 25, 2005.
5. For instance, data from the Implicit Association Test suggest that in the United States most whitesand about half of blacks are quicker to associate positive terms like “joy” with whites and negative oneslike “bomb” with blacks. Even people who espouse antiracist views are often chagrined to find thatthey, too, are quicker to be positive about whites and negative about blacks.
6. On the Implicit Association Test, see Anthony Greenwald et al., “Measuring Individual Differencesin Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(1998), pp. 1464–80.
7. T. Andrew Poehlman et al., “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of Predictive Validity,” unpublished manuscript.
8. Brain imaging reveals that the stronger a person holds such subtle prejudice, the more active theamygdala while looking at the photo of someone in the target group, be it whites, women scientists, orthe elderly. See Alan Hart et al., “Differential Response in the Human Amygdala to Racial Out-groupVersus Ingroup Face Stimuli,” NeuroReport 11 (2000), pp. 2351–55; Elizabeth Phelps and Mahzarin R.Banaji, “Performance on Indirect Measures of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation,” Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience 12 (2000), pp. 729–38. And when images of faces from a Them group areshown quickly (or masked) so that the conscious mind has no idea what it has seen, the amygdala reactsmore strongly to these barely glimpsed images than to ones that are consciously seen. See also WilliamA. Cunningham et al., “Separable Neural Components in the Processing of Black and White Faces,”Psychological Science 15 (2004), pp. 806–13.
9. Irene V. Blair, “The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice,” Personality andPsychology Review 202 (2002), pp. 242–61.
10. On stereotype reduction, see Nilanjana Dasgupta and Anthony Greenwald, “On the Malleability ofAutomatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice with Images of Admired and DislikedIndividuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001), pp. 800–14.
11. On methods to reduce implicit bias, see Blair, “The Malleability.”
12. Intriguingly, people who hold an ongoing resolve to suppress negative stereotypes are able to doso as long as they are aware of the moment they see a person in the target group. But when theexposure to that person is subliminal (a blink, just 33 milliseconds), the implicit bias remains. SeeBlair, “The Malleability.”
13. On prefrontal and amygdala activity, see Matthew Lieberman et al., “A Pain by Any Other Name(Rejection, Exclusion, Ostracism) Still Hurts the Same: The Role of Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortexin Social and Physical Pain,” in J. Cacioppo et al., eds., Social Neuroscience: People Thinking AboutThinking People (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005).
14. This study also suggests why demagogues have always stirred fear and anger into the mix withhostility toward Them. A group’s sense of security poses a threat to one thing: prejudice.
15. On intergroup studies, see Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp, “A Meta-analytic Test ofIntergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2006, in press).
16. Casual contact counts less than relationships that people feel are important. See Rolf van Dick etal., “Role of Perceived Importance in Intergroup Conflict,” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 87, no. 2 (2004), pp. 211–27.
17. On ethnic divides in Europe, see Thomas Pettigrew, “Generalized Inter-group Contact Effects onPrejudice,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (1997), pp. 173–85.
18. On Germans and prejudice, see Ulrich Wagner et al., “Ethnic Prejudice in East and WestGermany: The Explanatory Power of Intergroup Contact,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 6(2003), pp. 22–36.
19. On affect versus cognitive categories, see Pettigrew and Tropp, “Meta-analytic Test.”
20. On categories breaking down, see Susan Rakosi Rosenbloom and Niobe Way, “Experiences ofDiscrimination Among African American, Asian American and Latino Adolescents in an Urban HighSchool,” Youth & Society 35, (2004), pp. 420–51.
21. Elliot Aronson, Nobody Left to Hate (New York: W.H. Freeman, 2000), p. 15.
22. On the toll of not belonging, see Mean Twenge et al., “Social Exclusion and the DeconstructedState: Time Perception, Meaninglessness, Lethargy, Lack of Emotion, and Self-awareness,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 85 (2003), pp. 409–23.
23. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Adolescentand School Health, School Connectedness: What We Know That Makes a Difference in Students’Lives (Atlanta, Ga., 2004).
24. On the decrement in working memory, see Toni Schmader and Michael Johns, “ConvergingEvidence that Stereotype Threat Reduces Working Memory Capacity,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 85 (2003), pp. 440–52.
25. Samuel Gaertner et al., “The Contact Hypothesis,” in Judith Nye and Aaron Brower, What’sSocial about Social Cognition? (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996).
26. On the letter, see Aronson, Nobody Left, p. 151.
27. On the gift, see Joseph Berger, “A Muslim Santa’s Gift to an Interfaith Group: Free Rent,” NewYork Times, December 24, 2004, p. B3.
28. Forgiveness, of course, comes more readily when the offender offers an authentic apology. As oneIsraeli proposed, a leader on either side of the Israeli rift with the Palestinians could make a ritualapology like, “You have been through so much because of us. We are sorry. We are sorry because wedidn’t mean to hurt you, we only wanted to build a nation.” That might help the peace process. SeeLucy Benjamin, “Impasse: Israel and Palestine,” Conference at Columbia University, New York,November 20, 2004.
29. On the physiology of forgiveness, see Fred Luskin, Forgive for Good (San Francisco:HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).
30. On forgiveness in Northern Ireland, see ibid.
31. Rabbi Laurence Kushner was interviewed in Jonathan Cott, On a Sea of Memory (New York:Random House, 2005), p. 153.
32. The producer of New Dawn is George Weiss, La Benevulencija Productions, Amsterdam. TheRwanda Project has its website at www.Heal-reconcile-Rwanda.org.
33. Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
34. Ervin Staub and Laurie Anne Pearlman, “Advancing Healing and Reconciliation in Rwanda andOther Post-conflict Settings,” in L. Barbanel and R. Sternberg, eds., Psychological Interventions inTimes of Crisis (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2006).