為什么90年代是比較好的10年

The Best Decade Ever? The 1990s, Obviously

為什么90年代是最好的10年

BACK in the late 1980s, when I was a co-editor of Spy magazine, we published a cover story about the 1970s. Spy being Spy, it was a grand feast of love-hate celebration: “A Return to the Decade of Mood Rings, Ultrasuede, Sideburns and Disco Sex-Machine Tony Orlando.” One of its implicit premises was the silliness of the pandemic of American nostalgia, especially for a culturally dubious decade that had ended less than a decade earlier. Over the last half century, we Americans have come to create and consume automatically and continuously a kind of recent-past wistfulness.

20世紀(jì)80年代末，我還是《密探》(Spy)雜志的主編之一，我們發(fā)表了一期關(guān)于70年代的封面故事?！睹芴健肪褪恰睹芴健?，這是一個(gè)愛(ài)恨交織的慶典與精彩的盛宴：“回到情緒戒指、麂皮絨、連鬢胡子和迪斯科性感機(jī)器托尼·奧蘭多(Tony Orlando)的十年里。”其中一個(gè)暗含的前提是美式懷舊蔓延的愚蠢，特別是對(duì)于一個(gè)文化上非常模糊的十年的懷舊，而它的終結(jié)甚至還不到十年。在上個(gè)世紀(jì)的下半葉，我們美國(guó)人無(wú)意識(shí)地創(chuàng)造與消費(fèi)著對(duì)“不久前的過(guò)去”的悵惘之中，并且持續(xù)不斷地處于這種狀態(tài)。

But what about the 1990s? Nostalgia for the era in which you were young is almost inevitable, so people born between 1970 and 1990 feel a natural fetishistic fondness for that decade. But even for the rest of us, the ’90s provoke a unique species of recherche du temps perdu, not mere bittersweet reveling in the passage of time. No, looking back at the final 10 years of the 20th century is grounds for genuine mourning: It was simply the happiest decade of our American lifetimes.

但90年代又怎樣呢?對(duì)自己年輕時(shí)代的懷舊是不可避免的，所以生于1970年到1990年的人肯定會(huì)對(duì)這十年產(chǎn)生一種盲目的天然親切之感。但是即便對(duì)于我們其他人來(lái)說(shuō)，90年代也能喚起一種獨(dú)特的“追憶似水年華”之感，這不僅僅是對(duì)時(shí)光流逝的苦甜參半的回憶。不，回溯20世紀(jì)的最后十年是一種真正的哀悼：那是我們美國(guó)人生活中最快樂(lè)的十年。

This isn’t (mainly) fogeyishness on my part. No. It is empirically, objectively, broadly true. I am not now nor have I ever been a Clintonite, but when Jeb Bush reportedly said a few weeks ago, apropos of 2016 and the probable Democratic presidential nominee, that “if someone wants to run a campaign about ’90s nostalgia, it’s not going to be very successful,” I think he was being wishful.

這并不(主要)是出于我個(gè)人的守舊。不，這是有事實(shí)根據(jù)的，是客觀的、普適的真相。我從來(lái)不是克林頓的擁躉，現(xiàn)在也不是，但當(dāng)杰布·布什(Jeb Bush)幾個(gè)星期之前說(shuō)起2016年，以及可能的民主黨總統(tǒng)候選人時(shí)，他說(shuō)“如果有人能夠發(fā)起關(guān)于90年代懷舊的政治宣傳，肯定不會(huì)成功”，我覺(jué)得他過(guò)于一廂情愿了。

Let’s begin with the quantifiable bits. America at large was prospering in the ’90s. The United States economy grew by an average of 4 percent per year between 1992 and 1999. (Since 2001, it’s never grown by as much as 4 percent, and since 2005 not even by 3 percent for a whole year.) An average of 1.7 million jobs a year were added to the American work force, versus around 850,000 a year during this century so far. The unemployment rate dropped from nearly 8 percent in 1992 to 4 percent — that is, effectively zero — at the end of the decade. Plus, if you were a man and worked in an office, starting in the ’90s you could get away with never wearing a necktie.

我們還是從量化的數(shù)據(jù)開(kāi)始吧。在90年代，美國(guó)從總體而言非常繁榮。從1992年到1999年，美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)平均每年增長(zhǎng)4%(從2001年起就再也沒(méi)有超過(guò)4%;從2005年起，全年增長(zhǎng)率就再也沒(méi)有超過(guò)3%)。每年平均增加170萬(wàn)個(gè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，本世紀(jì)以來(lái)，平均每年約增長(zhǎng)85萬(wàn)個(gè)就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。到90年代末，失業(yè)率從1992年的8%降低到4%(這事實(shí)上等于零)。此外，如果你是做文職工作的男性，從90年代開(kāi)始，你就可以不用西裝革履地去上班了。

From 1990 to 1999, the median American household income grew by 10 percent; since 2000 it’s shrunk by nearly 9 percent. The poverty rate peaked at over 15 percent in 1993, then fell to nearly 11 percent in 2000, more or less its postwar low. During the ’90s, stocks quadrupled in value — the Dow Jones industrial average increased by 309 percent. You could still buy a beautiful Brooklyn townhouse for $500,000 or less. And so on.

從1990年到1999年，美國(guó)家庭收入的中位數(shù)增長(zhǎng)了10%;自從2000年以來(lái)，降低了約9%。貧困率在1993年達(dá)到最高，超過(guò)15%，到 2000年下降到接近11%，近乎“二戰(zhàn)”后的最低點(diǎn)。在90年代，股價(jià)翻了四倍，道瓊斯工業(yè)平均指數(shù)增長(zhǎng)了309%。你仍然可以用50萬(wàn)美元乃至更少的錢就買下一棟漂亮的布魯克林聯(lián)排別墅。等等。

By the end of the decade, in fact, there was so much good news — a federal budget surplus, dramatic reductions in violent crime (the murder rate in the United States declined by 41 percent) and in deaths from H.I.V./AIDS — that each astounding new achievement didn’t quite register as miraculous. After all, the decade had begun with a fantastically joyful and previously unimaginable development: The Soviet empire collapsed, global nuclear Armageddon ceased to be a thing that worried anyone very much, and the nations of Eastern Europe were mostly unchained.

到90年代末，事實(shí)上，有那么多的好消息——聯(lián)邦預(yù)算出現(xiàn)剩余、暴力犯罪大幅度減少(美國(guó)的謀殺率降低了41%)，HIV/艾滋死亡率也大幅度減少 ——這些驚人的新成就在當(dāng)時(shí)并為被視為奇跡。畢竟，這十年剛一開(kāi)始，就發(fā)生了一個(gè)令人快樂(lè)而又難以置信的成就——蘇聯(lián)帝國(guó)解體，人們不再為全球核末日而擔(dān)憂，東歐國(guó)家也大都獲得了解放。

A tide of progress and good sense seemed to be sweeping the whole world. According to the annual count by Freedom House, the tally of the world’s free countries climbed from 65 at the beginning of the decade to 85 at the end. Since then, the total number of certified-free countries has increased by only four.

進(jìn)步與善意的大潮似乎席卷了整個(gè)世界。根據(jù)“自由之家”(Freedom House)組織的年度統(tǒng)計(jì)，90年代初，全世界共有65個(gè)自由國(guó)家，到了90年代末，變成了85個(gè)。自那以后，被承認(rèn)的自由國(guó)家只增加了四個(gè)。

Between 1990 and 1994 South Africa dismantled apartheid surprisingly peacefully. With the Oslo Accords, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization had come together at last to negotiate a framework for coexistence and eventual peace. The civil wars in the former Yugoslavia ended and an enduring peace was restored. China reforming its economy, tripling its gross domestic product and easing its way into the world order.

從1990年到1994年，南非以驚人的和平方式廢除了種族隔離制度。根據(jù)奧斯陸協(xié)議，以色列與巴勒斯坦解放組織終于走到一起，談判共存與持久和平的框架。前南斯拉夫國(guó)家的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束了，持久的和平得以恢復(fù)。中國(guó)開(kāi)始進(jìn)行經(jīng)濟(jì)改革，國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值翻了三倍，開(kāi)始融入世界秩序。

During the ’90s, the only American-led war in the Middle East was the one that drove Saddam Hussein’s invading army out of Kuwait with a ground campaign that lasted a mere 100 hours.

在90年代，美國(guó)在中東的唯一一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是派遣地面部隊(duì)，把薩達(dá)姆·侯賽因(Saddam Hussein)的侵略軍趕出科威特，戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)僅僅持續(xù)了100個(gè)小時(shí)。

Peace, prosperity, order — and American culture was vibrant and healthy as well. There were both shockingly excellent versions of what had come before and distinctly new, original forms. Wasn’t the release of Nirvana’s “Nevermind,” in 1991, pretty much the last time a new rock ’n’ roll band truly, deeply mattered, the way rock ’n’ roll did in the ’60s and ’70s? Wasn’t hip-hop, which achieved its mass-market breakthrough and dominance in the ’90s, the last genuinely new and consequential invention of American pop culture?

和平、繁榮與秩序——美國(guó)文化也同樣健康活躍。文化中既有承襲自過(guò)去的東西，也有嶄新的原創(chuàng)形式，二者都很精彩。1991年，“涅槃” (Nirvana)發(fā)行了《別在意》(Nevermind)， 一支新的搖滾樂(lè)隊(duì)能像六七十年代的搖滾樂(lè)那樣，產(chǎn)生真正深遠(yuǎn)的影響，這難道不是最后一次嗎?嘻哈樂(lè)在大眾市場(chǎng)獲得突破，主宰了90年代，這難道不是美國(guó)流行文化中最后一次產(chǎn)生真正新穎而重大的創(chuàng)新嗎?

What is the most remarkably successful literary creation of the last several decades? The Harry Potter novels, the first three of which appeared in the ’90s. Supertalented literary youngsters appeared — David Foster Wallace (“Infinite Jest”), Donna Tartt (“The Secret History”), Jonathan Lethem (“Motherless Brooklyn”) and Dave Eggers (McSweeney’s). And supertalented literary geezers — Philip Roth (“American Pastoral”), John Updike (“Rabbit at Rest”), Alice Munro (“The Love of a Good Woman”), Don DeLillo (“Underworld”) — produced some of their best and most successful work as well.

說(shuō)說(shuō)過(guò)去十幾年來(lái)最成功的文學(xué)創(chuàng)作?哈利·波特(Harry Potter)系列小說(shuō)的前三部都是在90年代出版的。那十年間，天才文學(xué)新星開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)：寫出了《無(wú)盡的玩笑》(Infinite Jest)的大衛(wèi)·福斯特·華萊士(David Foster Wallace)、寫出《秘史》(The Secret History)的唐娜·塔特(Donna Tartt)、寫出《布魯克林孤兒》(Motherless Brooklyn)的喬納森·勒瑟姆(Jonathan Lethem)和寫出《麥克斯維尼》(McSweeney’s)的戴夫·艾格斯(Dave Eggers)。此外還有那些天才的老人家們——菲利普·羅斯(Philip Roth)寫出了《美國(guó)牧歌》(American Pastoral)、約翰·厄普代克(John Updike)寫出了《兔子歇了》(Rabbit at Rest)、愛(ài)麗絲·門羅(Alice Munro)寫出了《好女人的愛(ài)》(The Love of a Good Woman)，唐·德里羅(Don Delillo)寫出了《地下》(Underworld)——他們都獻(xiàn)上了最精彩、最成功的作品。

The quality of television radically improved. “Seinfeld” and “The Simpsons” had their premieres in 1989, and in the ’90s they blew up, along with “Friends” and “NYPD Blue” — all of them broadcast network series, none of them reality shows. HBO, before the ’90s a channel for movies, boxing and soft-core porn, decided to swing for the fences. First with “The Larry Sanders Show” and then with “The Sopranos,” it proved that episodic television could accommodate major ambition and actual brilliance, ushering in an enduring new (cable) TV era.

電視節(jié)目的質(zhì)量急劇上升?！端物w傳》(Seinfeld)和《辛普森一家》(The Simpsons)都于1989年首次亮相，在90年代興盛一時(shí)，之后是《老友記》(Friends)和《紐約重案組》(NYPD Blue)——它們都是公共臺(tái)電視劇，都不是真人秀。HBO臺(tái)在90年代之前是個(gè)專放電影、拳擊和軟色情的頻道，90年代，它決定轉(zhuǎn)型。先是制作了《拉里·桑德斯秀》(The Larry Sanders Show)，之后又有了《黑道家族》(The Sopranos)，這部劇集證明電視劇也可以承載遠(yuǎn)大的抱負(fù)，成為真正精彩的節(jié)目，從而引領(lǐng)了一個(gè)長(zhǎng)盛不衰的(有線)電視新時(shí)代。

In feature films, it was the decade of “Pulp Fiction” and the indie movement, thanks to which idiosyncratic, more-commercial-than-art-house masterpieces like those by Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne and Richard Linklater became plausible. It was also the decade in which traditional Disney animation came back from the dead and in which Pixar, with the first two “Toy Story” movies, reinvented the form magnificently.

在電影界，這是屬于《低俗小說(shuō)》(Pulp Fiction)與獨(dú)立運(yùn)動(dòng)(indie movement)的十年，韋斯·安德森(Wes Anderson)、亞歷山大·佩恩(Alexander Payne)與理查德·林特萊克(Richard Linklater)拍攝的那些怪異而又有商業(yè)氣質(zhì)，不那么孤芳自賞的杰作開(kāi)始為大眾所見(jiàn)。這十年里，傳統(tǒng)迪斯尼動(dòng)畫起死回生，皮克斯也帶來(lái)了《玩具總動(dòng)員》(Toy Story)系列的前兩部，革新了動(dòng)畫片這種形式。

THE digital age, of course, got fully underway in the ’90s. At the beginning of the decade almost none of us had heard of the web, and we didn’t have browsers, search engines, digital cellphone networks, fully 3-D games or affordable and powerful laptops. By the end of the decade we had them all. Steve Jobs returned to Apple and conjured its rebirth.

當(dāng)然，90年代，數(shù)碼時(shí)代也在醞釀之中。在90年代初，我們大家?guī)缀醵紱](méi)有聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，我們也沒(méi)有瀏覽器、搜索引擎、數(shù)字手機(jī)系統(tǒng)、3-D游戲或便宜好用的筆記本電腦。到90年代末，這一切全都成了現(xiàn)實(shí)。史蒂夫·喬布斯(Steve Jobs)回歸蘋果公司，令它獲得新生。

And it was just the right amount of technology. By the end of the decade we all had cellphones, but not smartphones; we were not overconnected or tyrannized by our devices. Social media had not yet made social life both manically nonstop and attenuated. The digital revolution hadn’t brutally “disrupted” whole economic sectors and made their work forces permanently insecure. Recorded music sales nearly doubled during the decade. Newspapers and magazines were thriving. Even Y2K, our terrifying end-of-the-millennium technological comeuppance, was a nonevent.

而且這些都是適度的技術(shù)。90年代末，我們都有了手機(jī)，但還不是智能手機(jī);我們還沒(méi)有被設(shè)備過(guò)度連接，或者受到技術(shù)的控制。社交媒體還沒(méi)有令社交生活變得病態(tài)般無(wú)休無(wú)止，一方面又弱化了社交生活。數(shù)碼革命還沒(méi)有粗暴地“瓦解”整體經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)節(jié)，令它們的工作變得再也不那么安全。90年代，音樂(lè)唱片的銷量幾乎增加了一倍。報(bào)紙和雜志也繁榮昌盛。就連可怕的千禧年技術(shù)危機(jī)——千年蟲(chóng)——到最后都根本不成問(wèn)題。

Indeed, the ’90s were a decade of catastrophes that didn’t happen. The Clinton tax increases did not trigger a recession. Welfare reform did not ravage the poor. Compared with Sandy, every hurricane that touched New York — Bob! Bertha! Danny! Dennis! Floyd! — was a dud.

事實(shí)上，90年代里根本沒(méi)有發(fā)生任何大災(zāi)難?？肆诸D政府的增稅并沒(méi)有引發(fā)衰退。福利改革沒(méi)有掠奪窮人。與桑迪颶風(fēng)相比，那時(shí)候經(jīng)過(guò)紐約的那些颶風(fēng)——鮑勃!伯莎!丹尼!丹尼斯!弗洛伊德!——全都是小菜一碟。

Were there real problems in the ’90s? Of course. But they weren’t obvious, so ... we were blissfully ignorant! Almost none of us were suitably alarmed by carbon emissions and the warming planet. According to a 1995 article in this newspaper about climate change, “most scientists say the amount of warming so far, about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century, is still too small to be distinguished from the climate system’s natural fluctuations.” So why worry?

90年代有什么真正的問(wèn)題嗎?當(dāng)然有，但它們并不是那么明顯，所以……我們真是處于有福的無(wú)知之中!我們都沒(méi)有充分意識(shí)到碳排放與全球變暖問(wèn)題?！都~約時(shí)報(bào)》1995年的一篇文章中談到氣候變化，“全球氣溫與上個(gè)世紀(jì)相比提高了一華氏度，大多數(shù)科學(xué)家認(rèn)為，考慮到氣候系統(tǒng)的自然波動(dòng)，這個(gè)變化并不大。”所以我們干嘛還要擔(dān)心?

When the House and Senate passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, doing away with the firewalls between investment banks and commercial banks, the change seemed inevitable, sensible, modern — not a precursor of the 2008 Wall Street crash. When a jihadist truck bomb detonated in the parking garage below the north tower of the World Trade Center in 1993, we were alarmed only briefly, figuring it for a crazy one-off rather than a first strike in a long struggle.

1999年，參眾兩院以兩黨多數(shù)通過(guò)了金融服務(wù)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化法案，并由克林頓總統(tǒng)簽署生效，撤銷了投資銀行與商業(yè)銀行之間的防火墻，在當(dāng)時(shí)，這個(gè)改變看來(lái)不可避免，是明智而現(xiàn)代化的——而不是2008年華爾街金融危機(jī)的前奏。1993年一個(gè)伊斯蘭圣戰(zhàn)者用卡車炸彈引爆了世貿(mào)中心北塔的停車場(chǎng)，我們只是短暫擔(dān)心了一陣，覺(jué)得這是瘋狂的一次性行為，而不是長(zhǎng)期戰(zhàn)斗的開(kāi)端。

Americans have never much liked paying attention to foreign countries and their problems (see Rwanda, 1994), so the decade between the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the war on terror was very much our cup of tea.

美國(guó)人從來(lái)不喜歡關(guān)注外國(guó)和外國(guó)人的問(wèn)題(看看1994年的盧旺達(dá)吧)，所以從冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后到與恐怖主義作戰(zhàn)之間的這十年正是最合我們的口味的那杯茶。