世界各国驱逐出境人数的上升，帮助种族主义言论获得了合法性，加桑·哈格写道。
The rise in state deportations around the world has helped to legitimise the use of racist language, writes Ghassan Hage.
加桑·哈格“驱逐出境！”散发出一种完全不同的权力感——一种种族主义者想象自己可以号召国家代表自己行动的权力感。围绕驱逐出境的种族主义言论正在上升。这显然受到全球范围内，尤其是在美国，对移民和庇护申请者使用驱逐措施增加的影响。
Ghassan Hage‘Deport!’ oozes an entirely different sense of power – one where the racist imagines they can call upon the state to act on their behalf There is a rise in racist rhetoric surrounding deportation. This is clearly influenced by the increased use of deportation against immigrants and asylum seekers worldwide, particularly in the US.
但我此处关注的，与其说是政府实践本身，不如说是它所帮助传播和合法化的种族主义语言：我在 X 上写点什么，某个不喜欢我所写内容的随机种族主义者，就因为我的名字叫加桑·哈格，认定我是一个可能被驱逐出境的人，然后在评论里只写“驱逐出境”。澳大利亚巴勒斯坦倡导网络主席纳赛尔·马什尼在《Crikey》上指出，“驱逐出境”是“我发布的任何内容下最常见的评论”。
But my concern here is not so much the governmental practice itself as the racist language that it has helped disseminate and legitimise: I write something on X, and some random racist who dislikes what I wrote decides that because my name is Ghassan Hage I must be a potentially deportable subject and simply writes “deport” as a comment. Nasser Mashni, the president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, notes in Crikey that “deport” is “the comment most often left on anything I post”.
表面上看，“驱逐出境！”这一感叹与种族主义指令“滚回你来的地方”并无太大区别。两者都试图剥夺某人的国家归属感，并幻想将其从国家空间中驱逐出去。但尽管有相似之处，两者之间存在重要差异。
On the face of it, there is not much difference between the exclamation “Deport!” and the racist injunction “Go back where you come from”. Both seek to delegitimise someone’s national belonging and fantasise their removal from national space. But despite the similarities there are important differences.
在《白人国家：多元文化社会中的白人至上主义幻想》一书中，我曾论证，“滚回你来的地方”是白人至上主义幻想的核心，这种幻想属于那些自认为有权决定谁该留在国家、谁该离开的主体。不过，应该注意的是，我在20世纪90年代写下这些话时，这一感叹更多地像是一种哀叹：“我有权告诉你滚回你来的地方，但我没有手段强迫你这样做，尽管我希望能够。”
In White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society, I argued that “Go back where you come from” was at the heart of the fantasy of white supremacy of subjects who felt entitled to decide who should stay in the nation and who should leave it. Nonetheless, it should be noted that at the time I wrote this, in the 1990s the exclamation operated more like a lament: “I am entitled to tell you to go back where you come from, but I have no means of forcing you to do so, even though I wish I could.”
除了不在乎对方“滚回”哪里——这是一个我在此处搁置的重要观点之外，“驱逐！”散发出一种完全不同的权力感。可以立即注意到，从形式上看，这一感叹的对象不是被种族化的人，而是国家。“驱逐！”想象出种族主义者与国家之间一种共谋关系，种族主义者可以借此呼吁国家代表他们采取行动。然而在实践中，被种族化的人仍然是主要的收信人。
Apart from not caring where the other “goes back” to – a significant point I leave aside here – “Deport!” oozes an entirely different sense of power. One can immediately note that, formally, the exclamation is directed not at the racialised person but at the state. “Deport!” imagines a relation of complicity between the racists and the state whereby the racists can call upon the state to act on their behalf. In practice, however, the racialised person remains the principal addressee.
其信息是：“看，我正在请求我的国家驱逐你。”而与“滚回你来的地方”不同，后者中种族主义者幻想自己对国家拥有所有权，但不一定对国家拥有所有权，而“驱逐”则意味着对两者都拥有所有权。
The message is: “Look, I am asking my state to deport you.”Whereas with “Go back where you come from” the racist fantasises a claim of ownership of the nation but not necessarily of the state, with “deport” there is a claim of ownership of both.
正如我在《白人国家》中所做的那样，我在这里使用“幻想”一词的精神分析意义，以理解主体如何构建他们对既可取又可能之事的追求。后者很重要：当种族主义者的幻想反映出国家政治文化的转变时，他们并非妄想。我想在此强调的是，这种转变在种族主义者与日益种族主义化的国家之间关系中的意义。那些审视保琳·汉森当前话语，并将其与她20世纪90年代的言论视为连续，却未注意到渗透其言论的权力感——这种权力感源于这一转变——的人，错过了重要的东西。
As I did in White Nation, I am using “fantasy” in a psychoanalytic sense to understand the way subjects frame their pursuit of both what is desirable and possible. The latter is important: racists are not delusional when their fantasy registers a shift in the political culture of the state. It is the significance of this transformation in racists’ relation to an increasingly racist state that I wanted to highlight here. Those who look at Pauline Hanson’s current discourse and see a continuity with her 1990s pronouncements, without noticing the sense of power that permeates her pronouncements and that derives from this shift, miss something important.
这种转变也影响着反种族主义者与国家的关系。在澳大利亚，原住民反种族主义与移民反种族主义之间历史上一直存在差异。后者往往对国家抱有更多信任。如今，特别是在国家对加沙及其居民遭受毁灭性打击做出可悲回应的阴影下，来自被殖民背景的移民越来越多地以原住民的方式体验国家的制度性种族主义：将其视为一种有害的生态系统、一种弥漫于社会环境中的普遍毒性，而不仅仅是一个事件或一种结构。
This transformation also affects the relation of anti-racists to the state. In Australia, there has historically been a difference between First Nations anti-racism and immigrant anti-racism. The latter has tended to have more faith in the state. Today, particularly in the shadow of the state’s pitiful response to the pulverisation of Gaza and its inhabitants, immigrants from colonised background have increasingly come to experience the institutionalised racism of the state in the way First Nations people do: more as a harmful ecology, a form of generalised toxicity that is being diffused throughout the societal environment than just an event or a structure.
在思考加沙阴影下种族主义如何更多地成为一种有毒生态时，我读了人类学家阿涅斯·让让关于巴黎下水道工人的民族志著作《卑微的工作》。我发现这本书特别启发人心且富有暗示力。书中一段描写，一名下水道工人划清了垃圾工与下水道工人的界限。他认为，垃圾工处理垃圾时能与垃圾保持一定距离，而下水道工人做不到。“我们在下水道里，下水道也在我们体内”，他说。
While thinking through the way racism in the shadow of Gaza has become more of a toxic ecology, I read an ethnography of sewage workers in Paris, Basses Oeuvres, by the anthropologist Agnès Jeanjean. I found it particularly stimulating and suggestive. In one passage, a sewage worker draws a distinction between garbage workers and sewage workers. Garbage workers, he argues, can maintain a certain distance between themselves and the garbage they handle. Sewage workers can’t. “On est dans les égouts et on a les égouts en nous” (“We are in the sewers and we have the sewers in us”), he said.
如果这种区分成立，我们可以说，今天的我们反种族主义者更像下水道工人，而非垃圾工。我们必须持续致力于净化自身、净化我们的反种族主义工具与策略，同时也在努力净化——并去殖民化——我们赖以生存的环境。
To the extent this distinction holds, we might say we anti-racists today are more like sewage workers than garbos. We must continuously work on de-polluting ourselves and de-polluting our anti-racist instruments and strategies, even as we are trying to de-pollute – and decolonise – the environment in which we live.