湯姆·福迪：伊麗莎白二世去世，也帶走了大英帝國的余暉

導(dǎo)讀：除了英國衍生的其他盎格魯國家外，英國的國家認(rèn)同是很特別的，因?yàn)樗窃诘蹏髁x的外衣下鍛造的，具有一種排他性的普遍主義特征。

【文/湯姆·福迪 譯/觀察者網(wǎng) 寧櫟】

英國女王伊麗莎白二世的葬禮，幾乎可以肯定地宣告了英國一個(gè)時(shí)代的結(jié)束。伊麗莎白二世在位70年，這是一個(gè)見證英國社會、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)生深刻變化的時(shí)代，見證大英帝國的解體和英國在世界上地位的改變。這些都成為此后70年英國國內(nèi)政治壓倒一切的主題，“現(xiàn)實(shí)主義”和“帝國認(rèn)同”之間的拉鋸戰(zhàn)，就相當(dāng)于圍繞英國“身份”的激烈斗爭和沖突。特別是在歐盟問題上，英國從否認(rèn)到接受，最后又以英國退歐的形式再次拒絕。

因此，伊麗莎白二世的去世，正值英國未來面臨前所未有的不確定性之時(shí)。這些揮之不去的不安全感來自英國的身份危機(jī)，產(chǎn)生了社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)的多方面壓力，不僅導(dǎo)致英國退歐，也導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)在的外交政策完全倒向身份和意識形態(tài)，而不是現(xiàn)實(shí)或常識。 與此同時(shí)，國內(nèi)政治也急劇右傾。 可以說，“戰(zhàn)后共識”已隨君主而去，未來似乎并不樂觀。

女王葬禮時(shí)威斯敏斯特教堂下半旗（來源：法新社）

除了英國衍生的其他盎格魯國家外，英國的國家認(rèn)同是很特別的，因?yàn)樗窃诘蹏髁x的外衣下鍛造的，具有一種排他性的普遍主義特征。英國并不像越南或韓國這樣的國家，以非常具體的民族概念來確定其身份，而是通過在全球范圍內(nèi)投射價(jià)值觀來確定，這當(dāng)然是帝國和資本主義的合法化。 如果用特拉斯首相的說辭，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)它被廣泛地定義為“自由市場”、“民主”和“法治”。 英國支持一種依托在全球霸權(quán)地位遺產(chǎn)上的例外論。

但是，當(dāng)這個(gè)帝國不復(fù)存在，或者英國越來越無法為大部分本國人民提供服務(wù)時(shí)，會發(fā)生什么呢？ 這就是英國今天面臨的困境。 帝國在領(lǐng)土和聲望方面的衰落也反映了全球范圍內(nèi)的經(jīng)濟(jì)變化，這些變化削弱了英國的競爭力，侵蝕了其工業(yè)基礎(chǔ)，導(dǎo)致了20世紀(jì)70年代和80年代的動(dòng)蕩。 然而，正如撒切爾夫人的政策，解決辦法是積極地把英國推上新自由主義的道路，這不僅摧毀了英國在帝國時(shí)代殘余的工業(yè)基礎(chǔ)，而且以純粹的、不受約束的資本主義的名義撕裂了英國社會的和諧結(jié)構(gòu)。

結(jié)果，支撐英國國家政治體制的“經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)”也隨之瓦解，其政治認(rèn)同和共識也會隨之崩潰。 從意識和目標(biāo)來看，蘇格蘭是一個(gè)獨(dú)立的國家，為了經(jīng)濟(jì)上的利益，蘇格蘭在18世紀(jì)同意與英格蘭合并。 在英帝國蓬勃發(fā)展的同時(shí)，蘇格蘭與英格蘭聯(lián)合的政治意愿也很強(qiáng)。 然而，隨著大英帝國的衰落，蘇格蘭賴以繁榮的工業(yè)基礎(chǔ)也衰落了，民族主義的支持率大幅上升，最后在2008年全球經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退和隨后卡梅隆首相力推緊縮計(jì)劃時(shí)爆發(fā)了。

雖然2014年蘇格蘭獨(dú)立公投沒有成功，但蘇格蘭民族主義的支持率仍然很高，這與英國的帝國懷舊思潮和英國脫歐的政治潮流形成了鮮明對比，這也是在帝國衰落和隨后經(jīng)濟(jì)潮流中處于不利地位的“落后”社區(qū)的傾向。英國經(jīng)濟(jì)從未真正從金融危機(jī)中復(fù)蘇，自那以來，英國以國家身份認(rèn)同的名義，做出越來越多災(zāi)難性的經(jīng)濟(jì)選擇，宣布了侵略性的外交政策，其中包括英國退歐、新冠疫情危機(jī)和升級烏克蘭戰(zhàn)爭，使英國陷入政治兩極分化和不穩(wěn)定的惡性循環(huán)。

伊麗莎白二世去世前幾天，特拉斯當(dāng)了首相，再也沒有比這更好的象征了。它代表著一個(gè)時(shí)代的結(jié)束，一個(gè)新時(shí)代的開啟。 伊麗莎白二世是英國戰(zhàn)后轉(zhuǎn)型和帝國衰落的象征。 然而，總的來說，兩者都很慘淡。 英國是一個(gè)還沒有接受帝國衰落的國家，還在激烈地試圖復(fù)辟。同樣不用說，伊麗莎白二世的個(gè)人聲望、遺產(chǎn)和軟實(shí)力永遠(yuǎn)不會被查爾斯三世真正實(shí)現(xiàn)。在查爾斯三世治下，英國將繼續(xù)看不到未來、在當(dāng)下陷入停滯、將繼續(xù)夢想過去的輝煌。

（本文系作者賜稿，英文原文見下頁。）

Britain's New Uncertain Era

By Tom Fowdy

The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II yesterday almost certainly formalized the end of an era for Britain, one which through her reign spanned 70 years. It is an era which marked a profound social, political and economic shift in Britain, marking the dismantling of an Empire and a change in its place in the world. All of this become an overriding theme of domestic politics in the seven decades that followed, which might be described as a tug of war between “pragmatism” and the lingering of “Imperial identity”, amounting to intense struggles and conflict over where Britain “belongs”, particularly in reference to Europe, swinging from denial, to acceptance, and even outright rejection in the form of Brexit.

It is such that Elizabeth’s passing has come at a time where uncertainties surrounding Britain’s future are in fact higher than ever before, because these lingering insecurities that have arose within the country’s identity have become manifold through social and economic pressures, leading to not only Britain’s departure from the European Union, but also a foreign policy now based purely on identity and ideology, than pragmatism or common sense. In conjunction with this, domestic politics has swerved sharply to the right. The “postwar consensus” so to speak, has figuratively passed away with the Monarch, and the future doesn’t seem optimistic.

Britain’s national identity is unique from many other countries (excluding the other Anglosphere states it created) in that was forged in the mantle of Imperialism itself, and has a result, an exclusively universalist character. Britain does not categorize its belonging in very specific ethnic terms, in the way a nation such as Vietnam or Korea might, but through a projection of values on a global scale which of course were a legitimation of Empire and capitalism. If you follow the rhetoric of Liz Truss, it is broadly defined in terms of “free markets”, “democracy” and “the rule of law”. Britain espouses a form of exceptionalism attached to a legacy of global dominance.

But what happens of course, when that empire no longer exists, or for that matter Britain becomes increasingly unable to deliver for large portions of its own people? This is the dilemma that the UK faces today. The decline of the Empire in terms of territory and prestige also mirrored economic changes on a global scale which diminished Britain’s competitiveness and eroded its industrial base, leading to the upheavals of the 1970s and 1980s. The solution, however, as embodied by Margaret Thatcher, was to aggressively shoehorn the country onto the pathway of neoliberalism which not only destroyed the remnants Britain’s Imperial era industrial base, but also torn up the fabric of social harmony in the name of pure, unbridled capitalism.

And it is such that the “economic foundations” which underpin a given country’s ruling regime unravels, that its political identity and consensus also start to unravel with it. Take for example, Scotland. For all intents and purposes, Scotland is a separate nation, which for economic practicality, agreed to become a singlestate with England in the 18th century. Whilst the Empire boomed, political consent for the union with England was strong. However, as the British Empire declined, and the industrial underpinning which Scotland thrived on also declined, support for Scottish nationalism surged existentially, and especially so given the turning points of the global recession of 2008 and the David Camera era austerity program which followed.

Whilst the initial Scottish independence referendum in 2014 did not succeed, support for Scottish Nationalism has nonetheless remained high, and comes in contrast to the polar opposite political current of British Imperial nostalgia and Brexit within England itself, again a product of “l(fā)eft behind” communities who have been on the disadvantageous end of Britain’s Imperial decline and its subsequent economic choices. As Britain’s economy has never truly recovered from the financial crisis, and has made more and more disastrous economic choices since, made of course in the name of identity which promulgates an aggressive foreign policy, of which include Brexit, covid19 mismanagement and choosing to escalate the war in Ukraine, locking the country in a vicious cycle of more political polarization and destabilization.

Never was this better symbolized by the fact that Liz Truss is now Prime Minister, and Queen Elizabeth II happened to die just days later. It represents the end of one era, and the opening of a new one. Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of Britain’s postwar transformation and Imperial decline. Yet all in all, none of it is for the better. The United Kingdom is a nation that has not come to terms with the decline of empire and is drastically attempting to compensate for such. It also goes without saying that the Elizabeth’s personal popularity, legacy and softpower will never be truly fulfilled by her son Charles III, which will entrench a nation who unable to look forwards and nothing going for it in the present, will continue to dream of past glories.

本文系觀察者網(wǎng)獨(dú)家稿件，文章內(nèi)容純屬作者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)，不代表平臺觀點(diǎn)，未經(jīng)授權(quán)，不得轉(zhuǎn)載，否則將追究法律責(zé)任。關(guān)注觀察者網(wǎng)微信guanchacn，每日閱讀趣味文章。