????如果你對(duì)參加占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)（Occupy Wall Street）的人群，以及那些在“西雅圖之戰(zhàn)”中對(duì)抗世界貿(mào)易組織（WTO）的反全球化主義者抱有哪怕一丁點(diǎn)同情，你就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)詹姆斯·C·斯科特的著作《為無(wú)政府主義喝兩聲彩》（Two Cheers for Anarchism?）對(duì)這些抗議者觀點(diǎn)的陳述遠(yuǎn)比他們自己更加連貫。即使你認(rèn)為他們不過(guò)是一群令人惡心、非常偽善的暴徒，你也依然會(huì)認(rèn)真思考這本書(shū)的觀點(diǎn)。倘若你真的欽佩這些抗議者，那么你肯定會(huì)愛(ài)上這本書(shū)——它或許是常青藤聯(lián)盟（Ivy League）給予抗議活動(dòng)最為深刻有力的支持。

????時(shí)而閃爍著洞察力，時(shí)而富有煽動(dòng)性，間或又流露出一絲侮辱意味，斯科特以其特有的學(xué)術(shù)氣質(zhì)陳述了一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)：技術(shù)官僚精英們不值得信任，不服從是一種應(yīng)該倍加珍惜的美德。無(wú)需贅言的是，斯科特是耶魯大學(xué)（Yale University）斯特林講座政治學(xué)教授。

????“社區(qū)組織者”兼政治煽動(dòng)家索爾·阿林斯基為激進(jìn)分子制定了《反叛守則》（Rules for Radicals），斯科特則非常有效地為無(wú)政府主義者提供了一些警句。這本書(shū)講的是顛覆制度性權(quán)力。簡(jiǎn)言之，斯科特是擁有終身教職席位的阿林斯基（美國(guó)激進(jìn)主義政治家——譯注）。

????拜Facebook、Twitter等社交媒體所賜，個(gè)人不服從行為在全球范圍的蔓延為似乎根深蒂固的精英和潛在反叛者創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)“新常態(tài)”。這就是理解現(xiàn)代抵抗運(yùn)動(dòng)的學(xué)術(shù)（和反學(xué)術(shù)）基礎(chǔ)為何如此重要的原因所在，無(wú)論你掌管的是?？松梨诠荆‥xxon Mobil）、谷歌公司（Google），還是一個(gè)獨(dú)裁或極權(quán)國(guó)家。

????“我們對(duì)不服從行為非常感興趣，尤其是那些堪稱(chēng)楷模、能夠引發(fā)連鎖反應(yīng)、促使其他人競(jìng)相模仿的不服從行為，”斯科特指出。“我們所面對(duì)的，與其說(shuō)是一種出于懦弱或良心（也許兩者兼而有之）的個(gè)人行為，倒不說(shuō)是一種能夠產(chǎn)生巨大影響的社會(huì)現(xiàn)象。如果乘以數(shù)千倍，這種看似微小的拒絕行為最終或許會(huì)使將軍和國(guó)家首腦們構(gòu)想的計(jì)劃淪為徹頭徹尾的笑話(huà)。但正如數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的珊瑚蟲(chóng)息肉雜亂無(wú)章地形成一個(gè)珊瑚礁一樣，成千上萬(wàn)個(gè)不服從和逃避行為也將創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)或政治珊瑚礁?！?/p>

????Should you hold even the slightest sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the anti-globalists who took on the World Trade Organization in the "Battle in Seattle," you'll find that James C. Scott's?Two Cheers for Anarchism?makes their arguments far more coherently than they do. Even if you consider them obnoxious mobs of hypocritical hooligans, you'll still find yourself taking the book's arguments seriously. If you actually admire them, then you'll love this book; it's the most sophisticated Ivy League support you're likely to see.

????Alternately insightful, inciteful, and insulting, Scott makes an idiosyncratically intellectual case that technocratic elites aren't to be trusted, and insubordination is a virtue to be cherished. Needless to say, Scott is the Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale.

????Where "community organizer" cum political provocateur Saul Alinksy had his?Rules for Radicals, Scott effectively offers aphorisms for anarchists. This book is about the subversion of institutional power. In short, it's Alinsky with tenure.

????Thanks to Facebook, Twitter, et al, the global scalability of individual acts of insubordination creates a "new normal" for seemingly entrenched elites and potential rebels alike. That's why it's important to understand the intellectual -- and anti-intellectual -- underpinnings of modern resistance movements, whether you're running Exxon Mobil (XOM), Google (GOOG), Greenpeace, or an authoritarian/totalitarian state.

????"Acts of disobedience are of interest to us when they are exemplary, and especially when, as examples, they set off a chain reaction, prompting others to emulate them," Scott observes. "Then we are in the presence less of an individual act of cowardice or conscience -- perhaps both -- than of a social phenomenon that can have massive social effects. Multiplied many thousandfold, such petty acts of refusal may, in the end, make an utter shamble of the plans dreamed up by generals and heads of state ... But just as millions of anthozoan polyps create, willy-nilly, a coral reef, so do thousands upon thousands of acts of insubordination and evasion create an economic or political barrier reef of their own."