忠于現(xiàn)實(shí)才是大智慧

周黎明：忠于現(xiàn)實(shí)才是大智慧

On New Year's Day, China Daily posted four of photos on its microblog, showing how littered New York's Times Square was after its year-end celebration. The post attracted 3,000 comments and 14,000 retweets. Among the retweeters was People's Daily, which drew 9,000 comments and 17,000 retweets of its own.

元旦那天，《中國日報》官方微博發(fā)布了四張照片。照片里的紐約時代廣場垃圾遍地，是前一夜人們新年狂歡后留下的。這條微博收到了3000條評論，被轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)14000次。其中人民日報也轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)了這條微博，收到了9000條評論，被轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)17000次。

China Daily's post was an oblique comment on the opinion that only Chinese show no respect for public sanitation. In a follow-up post, it added: "As the human flow for such fetes grows year by year, it becomes a common challenge for metropolises the world over for effective management of public spaces and its order and security while facing a sudden huge influx of visitors. We have paid a high price. But, in this age of global communication and traffic, it is ridiculous to discuss the issue in terms of racial quality."

只有中國人不注重公共衛(wèi)生——中國日報的微博正是對這種看法的一種無聲辯駁。中國日報在后續(xù)發(fā)布的微博中補(bǔ)充道：“隨著狂歡規(guī)模年復(fù)一年增加，如何在人群密度陡然增大時，實(shí)施有效的公共區(qū)域管理以保障安全、維持秩序，是大都市集體面臨的難題，也是已讓我們付出慘重代價的新挑戰(zhàn)。無論如何，國界逐漸消失、人員全球交流的時代，以膚色種族論素質(zhì)是顯而易見的愚蠢。”

The "high price" refers to the stampede in Shanghai on New Year's Eve in which 36 people died. "Racial quality" is a euphemism some critics assign to the inferiority of their compatriots when it comes to the less-than-desirable behavior in the public environment, such as littering, jostling and jumping the line.

“沉重的代價”指的是新年前夜發(fā)生在上海的踩踏事件，導(dǎo)致36人身亡。“民族素質(zhì)”是一種委婉的說法。當(dāng)提及社會地位較低的國人們在公共場合的不令人滿意的行為時，如亂丟垃圾、擁擠推搡和插隊(duì)等，一些評論家就會開始大談民族素質(zhì)問題。

It may not represent the mainstream voice of China, but there has always been an undercurrent of racism in China - against Chinese ourselves. Only in China would such a bad thing happen because Chinese are selfish, undereducated, scheming or too trustful, among other bad qualities, goes the argument.

這并不代表中國的主流聲音，但中國總有一股民族偏見的暗流，詆毀我們中國人自己。他們認(rèn)為，只有在中國才會發(fā)生如此糟糕的事情，因?yàn)橹袊颂运?，受教育程度低，善耍詭計，容易輕信別人。

This kind of statement derives from at least two sources: One is the tendency to blame a whole village for something done by an individual. A report of a serial killer would elicit a wave of responses saying that only a place so vile would spawn a creature like this. And a second possible source is the critical self-evaluation of scholars who scrutinize China's cultural soil for elements holding back its progress.

這種說法的出現(xiàn)有兩個原因：其中一個就是人們總愛用一個人干的壞事去責(zé)備整個村子的人。如果報道說某地出現(xiàn)了連環(huán)殺手，人們就會臆斷只有罪惡充盈的地方才會造就這么一個殺人惡魔。另一個可能的原因就是，一些學(xué)者們想要通過細(xì)察中國文化土壤來找到阻礙中國進(jìn)步的因素，他們希望通過嚴(yán)格的自我審視來達(dá)到鞭策進(jìn)步的目的。

The problem is, online denizens tend to accept the academic conclusions without delving into detailed analysis. The urge to generalize is so tempting and fits so neatly into the fast-food atmosphere of Internet expression that few have the patience to go through the travail of supporting one's arguments with evidence or rationalization. Online, the world is either black or white, with no room for shades of gray.

問題是，網(wǎng)民們傾向于不加深入分析便接受這種學(xué)術(shù)論斷。如此以偏概全的見解很是吸引人，也很符合網(wǎng)絡(luò)言論快餐式的氛圍，因而很少有人會有耐心去思考它是否能找到證據(jù)支撐，它背后的邏輯是否講得通。網(wǎng)絡(luò)世界非黑即白，沒有灰色地帶可言。

That goes for both China and the United States as topics of contention. Especially China and the US - two countries used as points of reference for political grandstanding. If you are pro-China, you must be anti-America; and vice versa, or so some believe. It has become so simplistic, partly because of the 140-character limit of most arguments, that the best parts of a public discourse, the parts that involve new information or factual nuances, tend to be left out or ignored.

對于中美間極具爭議性的話題而言也是如此。尤其是中國和美國——它們常常被放在政治秀中對立的兩端。如果你支持中國，你就一定反美國;反之亦然，至少一些人是這樣認(rèn)為的。這種看法把復(fù)雜問題過于簡單化，而其中部分原因是微博有140字的字?jǐn)?shù)限制，公眾話語中最精華的部分，那些包含新的信息和事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)的部分就可能被省略或忽略掉了。

For me, the four photos showing a detritus-cluttered Times Square were hardly surprising. Any place that had just packed in a million people would leave jetsam and flotsam of garbage - even under the best of circumstances. I'm not oblivious to factors such as cultural impact, educational levels and social backgrounds, etc. A typical American crowd that scientifically represents US demographics would probably litter less than a typical Chinese crowd. Within China, an urban gathering would heed public sanitation more than a rural assemblage. This has nothing to do with race, but lots to do with education, especially the teaching of civility.

在我看來，紐約時代廣場的垃圾照片一點(diǎn)都不令人驚奇。即使是在最好的情況下，一個剛剛有一百萬人呆過的地方都會產(chǎn)生大量的碎屑垃圾。我并非沒有注意到諸如文化影響、教育水平和社會背景之類的因素。一群能科學(xué)地代表美國人口結(jié)構(gòu)的典型美國人群很可能會比一群典型中國人丟的垃圾更少。在中國國內(nèi)，城市居民集會時會比鄉(xiāng)村居民更加注重公共衛(wèi)生。這和民族屬性沒有任何關(guān)系，而與教育水平關(guān)系關(guān)系匪淺，尤其是公民的禮儀教育。

New York, a city I called home for two years in the 1990s, is not typically American, not in my eyes. It attracts a much more diverse segment from the US and the rest of the world. For the New Year's countdown, the crowd was predominantly youthful, similar to the one at Shanghai's Bund. Anyway, I would hesitate to draw sweeping conclusions from one event or a few photos of it. I've seen American downtowns much dirtier and scarier than Chinese cities, and American suburbs and small towns much cleaner than Chinese ones. There are many reasons for the discrepancy, but race or ethnicity is not among them as far as I can figure out.

上個世紀(jì)90年代，我在紐約居住了兩年。紐約并不是一個典型的美國城市，至少在我看來不是。它吸引了來自全美和世界各地的人們，因而多元的文化和思想在這里交匯融合。參加新年夜倒數(shù)的絕大多數(shù)都是年輕人，情況和在上海外灘狂歡的人群類似。不管怎么說，我不會僅從一件事或幾張照片就匆匆下一個籠統(tǒng)的結(jié)論。我見過一些美國的市中心比中國的城市更骯臟、更可怕。我也見過一些美國的郊區(qū)和小鎮(zhèn)比中國的郊區(qū)和小鎮(zhèn)干凈整潔許多。這種差異的形成是有原因的，但據(jù)我所知，民族和種族絕不是其中之一。

As I see it, the outcry from Chinese netizens over the photos stems from ignorance. Those who do not know the US that well may imagine it as a symbol, either of goodness or of evil. As such, they would see the posting of the photos as a gesture of reluctance to face our own problems - or even one of denigrating the Utopia of their mind. I'm convinced those people have never lived in the States or read an American newspaper, which is usually plastered with local setbacks and criticisms of various policies.

如我所想，中國網(wǎng)民對于時代廣場垃圾照片的過激反應(yīng)是無知的表現(xiàn)。那些不了解美國的人們很可能會把這種行為看作是一種標(biāo)志——善良或邪惡的標(biāo)志。如果是這樣，他們會把這種發(fā)布垃圾照片的行為看作是不愿面對自身問題的表現(xiàn)——或甚至是誹謗他們心中理想國的惡劣行徑。我相信那些人應(yīng)該從來沒有在美國呆過或讀過美國的報紙，而美國的報紙通常會在醒目的位置刊登當(dāng)?shù)孛媾R的問題和批評政府政策的文章。

Of course, there was also the camp of schadenfreude that, "They were no better than us". They used the photographic evidence to justify domestic problems, inadvertently bearing witness to the mentality portrayed by the old Chinese saying, "Those who run 50 steps away from danger call those who fled 100 steps cowards". They forgot that lessons learned in other countries can indeed be applied to similar situations in our own country, with qualification, of course, thus saving us the trouble of making the same mistakes.

當(dāng)然，也有許多人幸災(zāi)樂禍道：“他們和我們一樣沒什么素質(zhì)。”他們以這些照片為據(jù)，為國內(nèi)的社會問題正名。他們的心態(tài)無意中印證了中國的一句古話：“五十步笑百步”。他們忘記了，其他國家的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)在一定條件下也可以在我國相似的問題中得到運(yùn)用。這樣我們就可以避免犯類似的錯誤。

Other than ignorance, the tendency to see a place as either pure good or pure bad is rooted in a stubborn inability to absorb the complexities of the real world. The world does not abide by either-or rules. Even a simple thing like littering has a full gamut of variations. Coupled with other factors, it may have so many dimensions as to dwarf the imagination of the creators of the theoretical physics-based movie Interstellar. We tend to simplify matters by winnowing less significant details from the discussion. But we should remind ourselves that the golden nuggets of wisdom are distilled from real-life experiences that are often messy and hard to grasp.

除了無知，這些人看待一個地方不是好就是壞，這種傾向源于他們?nèi)狈τ^察真實(shí)世界復(fù)雜性的能力。這個世界并不是非黑即白的。即使是像丟垃圾這樣簡單的事情也會有各種各樣的變化。與其他因素結(jié)合起來，它可能有如此多個維度，以致于(以物理理論為基礎(chǔ)的電影)《星際穿越》創(chuàng)造者的想象力都顯得相形見絀。我們傾向于在討論中省去一些細(xì)枝末節(jié)以達(dá)到簡化問題的目的。但是我們應(yīng)當(dāng)要提醒自己，智慧的金塊是從真實(shí)的生活經(jīng)歷中提煉出的，而現(xiàn)實(shí)生活往往是混亂而難以捉摸的。

Last year, I staged a play I had written earlier, titled The Ring Road, part of which was based on what I know personally. It features a Chinese couple who live in Silicon Valley. The husband wants to come back to China, listing all the things he finds unbearable stateside, like the glass ceiling for Asians and pure boredom for the middle class, and the wife counters with a litany of objectionable phenomena in China, such as pollution and the unremitting competition in Chinese schools.

去年，我創(chuàng)作的劇目《環(huán)路》上演了。這是我以前寫的一部劇，故事是部分地基于我個人的所見所聞。故事的主角是一對居住在硅谷的中國夫婦。丈夫想要回到中國，于是他列舉出所有他覺得美國不可容忍的地方，比如說存在對亞洲人的晉升障礙，中產(chǎn)階級逐漸失去社會地位等。妻子則說起一系列有關(guān)中國不好的地方的陳詞濫調(diào)，例如污染嚴(yán)重，學(xué)校競爭壓力巨大等。

I invited some friends to the dress rehearsal and their feedback disconcerted me. Some said my play was too pro-American and some too anti-America. I tried to explain that I did not have any political agenda either way, but I stopped midway. Instead I told them not to see it as an allegory, but as one man's journey through a real place, or more accurately, journeys of various characters I created from my observations.

我邀請了一些朋友觀看這部劇的排練，而他們的反饋令我有些困惑不安。一些人說我的劇親美色彩太重，另一些人則覺得它帶有很強(qiáng)的反美意識。我試著向他們解釋我并未在劇中隱含任何政治意圖，但中途我便放棄了。與之相反，我告訴他們，我希望他們不要把這部劇看作是一個政治性的寓言，它只不過是我通過觀察而創(chuàng)作出的真實(shí)反映人生旅途的一部作品罷了。

We all have our little prisms through which we see the world and which we cannot discard completely. But the ability to see a place for what it truly is, not what it is supposed to be, relies on the assiduous accumulation of knowledge. Only under the mountain of knowledge and impartiality will globs of prejudice crumble.

我們每個人都習(xí)慣于用自己的方式來看待這個世界，而我們都不能完全擺脫自身主觀判斷的影響。但是要能夠看到一個地方它“是什么樣子”，而不是它“應(yīng)該是什么樣子”，就需要刻苦勤勉地積累知識。只有掌握了足夠多的知識，秉承公正客觀的原則，才能消除內(nèi)心的一絲偏見。