從16歲時起，他就是一個無政府主義者；他從事人類學(xué)研究，在人類學(xué)界是一個重要人物；他曾是一名學(xué)者，因激進的政治主張被耶魯大學(xué)解聘；現(xiàn)在，他任教于倫敦大學(xué)，積極組織和參與了多個為爭取公平正義而進行的抗?fàn)幓顒?；他提出了新的?jīng)濟學(xué)觀點，雖與主流經(jīng)濟學(xué)理論格格不入，但讓更多人看到了其他可能；2011年，他和其他積極分子一道發(fā)起了轟動全球、聲勢浩大的革命性運動——“占領(lǐng)華爾街”。他就是此次運動的發(fā)起者之一——戴維·格雷伯。

David Graeber likes to say that he had three goals for the year 2011: promote his book， learn to drive， and launch a worldwide revolution. The first is going well， the second has proven challenging， and the third is looking up.

Graeber is a 51-year-old anthropologist. An American， he teaches at Goldsmiths， University of London. He’s also an anarchist1) and radical organizer. In the summer of 2011， Graeber was a key member of a small band of activists who quietly planned， then noisily carried out， the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park2)， providing the focal point for what has grown into an amorphous3) global movement known as Occupy Wall Street.

It would be wrong to call Graeber a leader of the protesters， since their insistently nonhierarchical philosophy makes such a concept heretical4). Nor is he a spokesman， since they have refused thus far to outline specific demands. Even in Zuccotti Park， his name isn’t widely known. But he has been one of the group’s most articulate voices， able to frame the movement’s welter5) of hopes and grievances within a deeper critique of the historical moment.

Graeber’s politics have been shaped by his experience in global justice protests over the years， but they are also fed by the other half of his life: his work as an anthropologist. Graeber’s latest book， published two months before the start of Occupy Wall Street， is entitled Debt: The First 5，000 Years. It is an alternate history of the rise of money and markets， a sprawling6)， erudite7)， provocative work. In the book he explores the ambivalent attitudes people have always had about debt: as obligation and sin， engine of economic growth and tool of oppression. Along the way， he tries to answer questions such as why so many people over the course of history have simultaneously believed that it is a matter of morality to repay debts and that those who lend money for a living are evil.

Graeber’s arguments place him squarely at odds with8) mainstream economic thought， and the discipline has， for the most part， ignored him. But his timing couldn’t be better to reach a popular audience. His writing provides an intellectual frame and a sort of genealogy9) for the movement he helped start. The inchoate10) anger of the Occupy Wall Street protesters tends to cluster around two things. One is the influence of money in politics. The other is debt: mortgages， credit-card debt， student loans， and the difference in how the debts of large financial companies and those of individual borrowers have been treated in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

The Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street

Graeber is small-framed and fidgety11)， with a pale boyish face and blue eyes. He dresses like a graduate student and speaks fast， in bursts punctuated by long ums， a ragged laugh， or pauses to catch his breath. He doesn’t make much eye contact. When finishing a thought， he has a habit of ducking his head and arching his eyebrows， as if he has just heard a faint but alarming sound.

Graeber began the summer of 2011 on sabbatical12)， moving back to New York from London and frequenting an artists’ space called 16Beaver. It was an intellectual activist salon， located near Wall Street， the sort of place where people would discuss topics like semiotics13) and the struggles of indigenous14) peoples. Like many other American activists， Graeber had been deeply moved by the occupation of Cairo’s Tahrir Square15); in mid-July， he published a short piece in Adbusters16) asking what it would take to trigger a similar uprising in the West. For much of the summer， the discussions at 16Beaver revolved around exactly that question.

On July 13， Adbusters put out its own call for a Wall Street occupation， to take place two months later， on Sept. 17. Setting the date and publicizing it was the extent of the magazine’s involvement. A group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—stepped in to execute the rest. After talking to Adbusters， the group began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind” and plan the Sept. 17 occupation.

The assembly was to be held in Bowling Green17)， the downtown Manhattan park. Graeber had heard about the meeting at 16Beaver， and the afternoon of Aug. 2， 2011 he went to Bowling Green with two friends—Georgia Sagri and Sabu Kohso.

A “general assembly” is a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made—not by a few leaders， or even by majority rule， but by consensus. Unresolved questions are referred to working groups within the assembly， but eventually everyone has to agree， even in assemblies that swell into the thousands.

When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2， however， they found out that the event wasn’t， in fact， a general assembly， but a traditional rally， to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands. In anarchist argot18)， the event was being run by “verticals”—top-down organizations—rather than “horizontals” such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they’d been had19)， and they were angry.

What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso， the two recruited several other people disgruntled20) with the proceedings， then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own general assembly， getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation. The original dozen or so people gradually swelled， despite the efforts of the event’s planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war21) lasted until late in the evening， but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent22) general assembly.

While there were weeks of planning yet to go， the important battle had been won. The show would be run by horizontals. For Graeber the next month and a half was a carousel23) of meetings. He facilitated24) some of them and spent much of the rest of his time in working group meetings. He organized legal and medical training and classes on nonviolent resistance. The group endlessly discussed what demands to make， or whether to have demands at all.

On Sept. 17， barely an hour before the scheduled 3 p.m. start time， the word went out to go to Zuccotti Park instead， and 2，000 people converged on the now famous patch of stone flooring， low benches， and trees. It was a fortunate choice: Zuccotti is a privately owned park， so the city doesn’t have the right to remove the protesters. Graeber helped facilitate the general assembly that night in which they decided to camp out in the park rather than immediately march on Wall Street.

An Anarchist’s Academic Career

Graeber has been an anarchist since the age of 16. He grew up in New York， in a trade-union-sponsored cooperative apartment building in Chelsea suffused with radical politics. A precocious child， he became obsessed at 11 with Mayan hieroglyphics25). He sent some of his original translations to a leading scholar in the field， who was so impressed that he arranged for Graeber to get a scholarship to Phillips Academy in Andover， Mass.

Years later， Graeber was a graduate student at the University of Chicago， and his field research brought him into contact with another， albeit26) very different， anarchic community. Graeber didn’t become an activist until after the massive 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. At the time an associate professor at Yale， he realized that the sort of movement he had always wanted to join had come into being while he was concentrating on his academic career. “If you’re really dedicated to this stuff， things can happen very quickly，” he says. “The first action you go to， you’re just a total outsider. You don’t know what’s going on. The second one， you know everything. By the third， you’re effectively part of the leadership if you want to be. Anybody can be if you’re willing to put in the time and energy.”

It was a particularly happy period for Graeber. In New Haven27) he was a scholar， and in New York， where he spent much of his time， he was an anarchist—he had found a new community among the loose coalition of activists and artists.

It came to an end in 2005， when Yale terminated his contract before he had a chance to come up28) for tenure29). Graeber appealed， and his case became a cause at Yale and in the broader community of academic anthropology. He maintains he was targeted at least in part because of his political activism. Others saw evidence that the modern university was exactly the sort of hierarchical organization that Graeber was philosophically opposed to and temperamentally unsuited for.

“There was an issue about his personal style， whether he was respectful enough to various senior people both in the department and at the university. He’s not someone who is known to be very pliable30)，” recalls Thomas Blom Hansen， an anthropology professor at Stanford who was a friend and Yale colleague of Graeber’s at the time. “I don’t think anyone doubts that he’s a major figure in his field，” he adds. “But he’s not really interested in the humdrum31) daily life of administration that constitutes an increasing part of our life in the academic world.”

Everyone involved in the creation of Occupy Wall Street， from Graeber to the editors of Adbusters to New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts， has been astonished by its success. Graeber doesn’t attribute the success of the occupation to its planners but to luck， timing， and the pervasive mood of anger and disillusionment in the country: There are few jobs， the political process has ground to a halt32)， and as individuals and as a nation， we’re drowning in debt.

Graeber’s problem with debt is not just that having too much of it is bad. More fundamental， he writes in his book Debt: The First 5，000 Years， is debt’s perversion of the natural instinct for humans to help each other.

At the end of his book， Graeber does make one policy recommendation: a Biblical-style “jubilee33)，” a forgiveness of all international and consumer debt. Jubilees are rare in the modern world， but in ancient Babylon， Assyria， and Egypt under the Ptolemies they were a regular occurrence. The alternative， rulers learned， was rioting and chaos in years when poor crop yields left lots of peasants in debt. “It would be salutary34)，” Graeber writes， “not just because it would relieve so much genuine human suffering， but also because it would be our way of reminding ourselves that money is not ineffable， that paying one’s debts is not the essence of morality， that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything it is the ability to all agree to arrange things in a different way.”

戴維·格雷伯常常說他2011年有三個目標(biāo)：宣傳他的新書，學(xué)會開車，發(fā)動一場世界性的革命。第一個目標(biāo)進展順利，第二個目標(biāo)充滿挑戰(zhàn)，第三個目標(biāo)正風(fēng)生水起。

格雷伯是一位人類學(xué)家，現(xiàn)年51歲。他是美國人，在倫敦大學(xué)的戈德史密斯學(xué)院任教。他同時也是個無政府主義者和激進活動的組織人。2011年夏，格雷伯成了一個小的激進團體的主要成員，他們先是悄悄策劃，然后高調(diào)實施了對曼哈頓下城區(qū)祖科蒂公園的占領(lǐng)。這次占領(lǐng)引發(fā)了人們的關(guān)注，關(guān)注的焦點就是后來發(fā)展成無固定組織的全球運動——“占領(lǐng)華爾街”。

稱格雷伯為抗議者的領(lǐng)袖并不恰當(dāng)，因為他們一再堅持的“無等級理念”與“領(lǐng)袖”這個詞格格不入。他也不是代言人，因為迄今為止他們一直拒絕提出任何具體的要求。即使在祖科蒂公園，格雷伯的名字也并非廣為人知。但他卻是這一團體中最善于表達的一員，他能將這一運動所承載的希望與憤懣交織的情感訴求，表達在對這一歷史性時刻的深刻評論中。

多年以來，格雷伯一直參與全球為爭取公平正義而進行的抗?fàn)幓顒?，這些經(jīng)歷影響著他的政治主張，但影響他政治主張的還有他生活的另一面，那就是他作為人類學(xué)家的工作。在“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運動爆發(fā)前的兩個月，格雷伯出版了他的新書，書名為《債務(wù)：第一個五千年》。這是一部關(guān)于貨幣與市場興起的另類歷史，洋洋灑灑，引經(jīng)據(jù)典，發(fā)人深省。在書中，他探討了人們一直以來對債務(wù)所持的矛盾態(tài)度：既是義務(wù)又是罪惡，既是經(jīng)濟增長的引擎，又是剝削壓迫的工具。在剖析過程中，他試圖回答諸如這樣的問題：在歷史的進程中，為什么有那么多人既認(rèn)為欠債還錢乃天經(jīng)地義，但同時又認(rèn)為靠放貸為生的人充滿罪惡。

格雷伯的言論使他完全站在了主流經(jīng)濟學(xué)理論的對立面，因此，在很大程度上，他被經(jīng)濟學(xué)界忽視了。但他抓住了這次運動提供的最佳時機，引起了大眾讀者的興趣。這部作品為他鼎力促成的占領(lǐng)運動提供了理論框架和歷史淵源?！罢碱I(lǐng)華爾街”的抗議者們最初的憤怒主要圍繞兩點。一個是金錢對政治的影響。另一個是債務(wù)：房貸、信用卡債務(wù)、學(xué)生貸款，以及在2008年金融危機爆發(fā)之后，個人借貸者和大型金融機構(gòu)欠下的債務(wù)受到的不同待遇。

“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運動的發(fā)起者

格雷伯身材瘦小，性情煩躁，長著一張蒼白的娃娃臉，藍眼睛。他穿得像個研究生，說話語速很快，爆發(fā)的陣陣語流中夾雜著長長的“呃”字、刺耳的大笑，或短暫的停頓來調(diào)整呼吸。他與別人沒有太多的目光交流。每當(dāng)說出一個想法，他總喜歡猛地低下頭，聳起眉毛，好像是聽到了一個微弱但卻令人警惕的聲音。

2011年夏天伊始，格雷伯開始休假，他從倫敦回到了紐約，經(jīng)常出入一個名為“海貍16號”的藝術(shù)家聚集處。這是一個激進知識分子的沙龍，就在華爾街附近。在這里，人們經(jīng)常談?wù)撘恍┲T如符號學(xué)和原住民艱辛生活的話題。和美國其他許多激進分子一樣，格雷伯被發(fā)生在埃及首都開羅的占領(lǐng)解放廣場的行動深深觸動。7月中旬，他在《廣告克星》雜志上發(fā)表了一篇短文，質(zhì)問到底需要什么才能在西方引發(fā)一場類似的抗議活動。在這個夏天的大部分時間里，“海貍16號”所討論的話題也都圍繞著這個問題。

7月13日，《廣告克星》發(fā)布了雜志關(guān)于“占領(lǐng)華爾街”的倡議，并計劃該活動于兩個月后的9月17日進行。確定日期并將之公布于眾——雜志能為這次活動做的也只能這么多了。剩下的活動是由一個名叫“反對削減預(yù)算的紐約客”的組織來參與執(zhí)行的，這個組織的成員是學(xué)生激進分子和紐約市一些貧困社區(qū)的社區(qū)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。在和《廣告克星》交流之后，這個組織開始為舉行“人民全體大會”作宣傳，以“反對任何形式的削減和緊縮政策”，并計劃于9月17日實施占領(lǐng)。

大會計劃在位于曼哈頓鬧市區(qū)的博林格林公園里舉行。格雷伯在“海貍16號”聽到了會議將要舉行的消息，便于2011年8月2日下午和兩個朋友一起前往博林格林公園——他們是喬治婭·薩格里和佐布小松。

所謂“全體大會”，就是一個經(jīng)過精心協(xié)調(diào)組織的集體討論，討論中達成的決定不是由少數(shù)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人決定的，甚至也不是由少數(shù)服從多數(shù)的原則來決定的，而是必須要全體一致通過。未能解決的問題將提交給大會工作小組，但最終還是要得到每個人的贊同，哪怕這個大會擁有數(shù)千名會眾。

然而，當(dāng)格雷伯和他的兩位朋友8月2日出現(xiàn)在博林格林公園時，他們卻發(fā)現(xiàn)這次集會事實上并不是什么“全體大會”，而是傳統(tǒng)性集會。集合之后有一個簡短的會議，然后他們就要走上華爾街，去散布一系列預(yù)先確定好的訴求。用無政府主義者的行話來說，這一活動是由“縱向機構(gòu)”組織的，即由上到下、等級森嚴(yán)的組織，而不是像格雷伯和他的朋友那樣的“橫向組織”。薩格里和格雷伯覺得他們被欺騙了，感到十分生氣。

后來發(fā)生的事情聽起來就像是一個無政府主義者的寓言。和小松一道，他們兩人又召集了其他一些對會議程序不滿的人，走到公園的最南端，開始舉行他們自己的全體大會，認(rèn)認(rèn)真真地籌劃起9月17日的占領(lǐng)活動。他們的人數(shù)從最初的十幾個人逐漸壯大起來。其間，原先會議的籌辦者還不斷努力想把人們拉回去。這種拉鋸戰(zhàn)一直持續(xù)到當(dāng)天很晚的時候，但最終留在博林格林公園的大約五十多人加入了“反對派”的全體大會。

雖然還需要幾個星期的籌劃，但關(guān)鍵的一戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)獲勝。占領(lǐng)活動將由平等的橫向組織者來操辦。對格雷伯來說，今后一個半月要面對的是走馬燈般的會議。有些會議是格雷伯本人促成的，剩下的大部分時間他都在參加工作小組會議。他組織了法律和醫(yī)療培訓(xùn)，開辦了非暴力抵抗的課程。他們一遍又一遍地討論應(yīng)該提出什么訴求，或者到底要不要提出具體的訴求。

9月17日，離預(yù)定的開始時間——下午3點——差不多還有一個小時的時間，人們忽然得到消息，說要改去祖科蒂公園。于是，兩千多人就聚集在那塊現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)非常出名的石頭地面上，坐在低矮的長椅上和樹蔭下。這是一次幸運的決策：祖科蒂公園是一家私人公園，因而紐約市當(dāng)局無權(quán)驅(qū)散這里的抗議者。那天晚上，格雷伯幫助組織了全體大會，會上他們決定在公園露營，而不是立刻進軍華爾街。

一位勇敢的思想者

從16歲時起，格雷伯就已成為一個無政府主義者。他自幼在紐約長大，生活在切爾西一個由工會資助的合租公寓里，那里充斥著激進的政治思想。他是個早熟的孩子，11歲時就對瑪雅象形文字產(chǎn)生了濃厚的興趣。他將自己對瑪雅文的一些原創(chuàng)翻譯寄給了該領(lǐng)域的一位著名學(xué)者，那位學(xué)者對格雷伯的印象非常深刻，親自為他聯(lián)系了馬薩諸塞州安多弗市菲利普斯學(xué)院的獎學(xué)金。

幾年后，格雷伯成了芝加哥大學(xué)的一名研究生，他的實地調(diào)查研究使他接觸到另一個與之前大不相同但同屬無政府主義的社團。1999年，在西雅圖爆發(fā)了大規(guī)模的抗議世貿(mào)組織的活動。此事件發(fā)生之后，格雷伯才成為一名無政府主義的積極實踐者。在耶魯大學(xué)任副教授時，他意識到在他全力專注于學(xué)術(shù)研究時，他一直想要加入其中的那種運動已經(jīng)誕生。“如果你真的熱衷于這種活動，你會很快進入狀態(tài)的，”他說，“第一次參加活動時，你只是個十足的門外漢，不知道一切是怎么進行的。第二次參加活動時，你就什么都明白了。第三次參加活動時，如果你愿意的話，你實際上都可以成為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的一員了。任何人都能做得到，只要你愿意投入時間和精力?！?/p>

對于格雷伯來說，這是一段特別快樂的時光。在紐黑文，他是一名學(xué)者；在紐約，他則是一個無政府主義者。他的大部分時間都是在紐約度過的，在那里，在激進主義者和藝術(shù)家結(jié)成的松散聯(lián)盟里，他創(chuàng)建了一個新的社團。

這一切都在2005年畫上了句號。那一年，耶魯大學(xué)終止了與格雷伯的合同，其時，他尚未有機會被提名終身教職。格雷伯提起了訴訟，他的案子在耶魯大學(xué)和人類學(xué)這一更廣泛的學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域成為眾人熱議的話題。他堅持認(rèn)為，他被拿來當(dāng)靶子至少有一部分原因是他激進的政治主張。還有人認(rèn)為，從價值觀來講，格雷伯一直反對帶有等級觀念的機構(gòu)，而現(xiàn)代大學(xué)正是這樣的機構(gòu)，因此從性情上來講，這樣的大學(xué)并不適合他。

“關(guān)于他的個人風(fēng)格，人們有過一些爭議，比如對系里和整所大學(xué)里的長者他是否有過足夠的尊重。他不是那種善于變通的人?！蓖旭R斯·布洛姆·漢森回憶說。漢森是斯坦福大學(xué)人類學(xué)教授，也是當(dāng)時格雷伯在耶魯大學(xué)任教時的同事和朋友?！霸谖铱磥?，沒有人會懷疑他是人類學(xué)界一個重要的人物，”他補充說，“但他對平淡無奇的日常行政管理毫無興趣，而這種管理在學(xué)術(shù)界正越來越多地構(gòu)成我們生活的一部分。”

每個參與發(fā)起“占領(lǐng)華爾街”抗議活動的人，從格雷伯到《廣告克星》的編輯，再到“反對削減預(yù)算的紐約客”，都對占領(lǐng)活動的成功大感意外。格雷伯沒有把占領(lǐng)活動的成功歸功于活動的籌劃者，而是歸功于運氣、時機和整個國家彌漫的憤怒、幻滅的情緒：工作機會稀少，政治進程已逐漸停滯，無論是國家還是個人都債臺高筑。

在格雷伯眼中，債務(wù)問題并不僅僅是“負(fù)債太多很糟糕”那么簡單。他在《債務(wù)：第一個五千年》這本書中寫道：更為根本的是，債務(wù)扭曲了人們互相幫助的天性。

在書的最后，格雷伯的確提出了一條政策建議：像《圣經(jīng)》里提到的“大赦”那樣，赦免所有國際債務(wù)和消費者債務(wù)。大赦在現(xiàn)代社會已難得一見，但在古代巴比倫、亞述以及托勒密王朝統(tǒng)治下的埃及，大赦天下的事經(jīng)常發(fā)生。統(tǒng)治者知道，在莊稼歉收的年份，許多農(nóng)民背負(fù)債務(wù)，如果不進行赦免，將會發(fā)生暴動和騷亂?！吧饷鈧鶆?wù)是有益的，”格雷伯寫道，“不僅因為它能減輕人們真實存在的巨大痛苦，更因為它能時刻提醒我們：金錢問題無需避諱；欠債還錢并非道德之本；所有這一切都是人為規(guī)定的；如果說民主還有意義的話，那就是讓人人都明白，這世道需要改變?！?/p>

1.anarchist [#712;aelig;n#601;(r)k#618;st] n. 無政府主義者

2.Zuccotti Park：祖科蒂公園，坐落于紐約市曼哈頓下城區(qū)的一個公園，面積3100平方米。Brookfield房地產(chǎn)公司擁有該公園的產(chǎn)權(quán)，但公眾可以使用。公園的西北角通往世貿(mào)中心。

3.amorphous [#601;#712;m#596;#720;(r)f#601;s] adj. 無組織的

4.heretical [h#601;#712;ret#618;k(#601;)l] adj. 異端的

5.welter [#712;welt#601;(r)] n. 雜亂無章，一片混亂

6.sprawling [#712;spr#596;#720;l#618;#331;] adj. 蔓生的，不規(guī)則地伸展的

7.erudite [#712;er#650;da#618;t] adj. 博學(xué)的，有學(xué)問的

8.at odds with：意見不一致

9.genealogy [#716;d#658;i#720;ni#712;aelig;l#601;d#658;i] n. 系譜(圖)

10.inchoate [#618;n#712;k#601;#650;#601;t] adj. 初期的

11.fidgety [#712;f#618;d#658;#618;ti] adj. 坐立不安的，煩躁的

12.sabbatical [s#601;#712;baelig;t#618;k(#601;)l] n. (大學(xué)教授的)休假年，休假

13.semiotics [#716;semi#712;#594;t#618;ks] n. [語]符號學(xué)

14.indigenous [#618;n#712;d#618;d#658;#601;n#601;s] adj. 本地的，本土的

15.the occupation of Cairo’s Tahrir Square：指2011年的埃及革命。從2011年1月25日開始，埃及民眾為抗議警察粗暴執(zhí)法、政府腐敗等問題而進行了一系列街頭示威、游行、集會、罷工等活動?？棺h活動在埃及各大都市展開。在開羅，有大約四萬五千人聚集在解放廣場進行抗議。

16.Adbusters：《廣告克星》，是一本無廣告的社會活動雜志，由Adbusters媒體基金會出版。Adbusters媒體基金會是一個宣傳反消費主義和環(huán)保主義的加拿大非盈利性社會活動組織。

17.Bowling Green：博林格林公園，位于曼哈頓下城區(qū)，是紐約城最古老的公園之一。

18.argot [#712;ɑ#720;(r)ɡ#601;#650;] n. 行話；暗語

19.have [haelig;v] vt.〈俚〉欺騙，使上當(dāng)

20.disgruntled [d#618;s#712;ɡr#652;nt(#601;)ld] adj. 不滿的，不高興的

21.tug of war：兩派間的激烈競爭

22.insurgent [#618;n#712;s#604;#720;(r)d#658;(#601;)nt] adj. 反叛的；反抗的

23.carousel [#716;kaelig;r#601;#712;sel] n. 旋轉(zhuǎn)木馬

24.facilitate [f#601;#712;s#618;l#601;te#618;t] vt. 促進；幫助

25.Mayan hieroglyphics：瑪雅象形文字，中美洲前哥倫布時期瑪雅文明的文字系統(tǒng)，源于中美洲文字。最早的瑪雅象形文字記載可追溯至公元前3世紀(jì)，該文字一直被持續(xù)使用，直到西班牙征服者在16世紀(jì)入侵瑪雅后才停止使用。

26.albeit [#596;#720;l#712;bi#720;#618;t] conj. 盡管；即使

27.New Haven：紐黑文，美國康涅狄格州南部港市，耶魯大學(xué)所在地

28.come up：被提出或討論(作候選人等)

29.tenure [#712;tenj#601;(r)] n. (大學(xué)教師等被授予的)終身職位

30.pliable [#712;pla#618;#601;b(#601;)l] adj. 順從的；圓通的

31.humdrum [#712;h#652;mdr#652;m] adj. 單調(diào)的；乏味的

32.grind to a halt：完全停止；慢慢停止

33.jubilee [#712;d#658;u#720;b#618;li#720;] n. (天主教)大赦年

34.salutary [#712;saelig;lj#650;t(#601;)ri] adj. 有益的，有利的