黃背心的力量

Someday the “gilet jaune,” the fluorescent yellow hazard vest that has become synonymous with the French outcry over fuel prices, growing income inequities and much more, will end up in a museum as one of the most effective protest garments in history.

熒光黃色安全背心“gilet jaune”已成為法國(guó)人對(duì)燃料價(jià)格、不斷加劇的收入不公等問(wèn)題的強(qiáng)烈抗議的代名詞，總有一天，它將走進(jìn)博物館，成為歷史上最有效的抗議服裝之一。

Whoever chose it (and no one is claiming authorship, just as no one has stepped forward as a leader of the movement), and for whatever reason, instinct or insight, it was a potent idea. So effective, in fact, that on Tuesday the French president, Emmanuel Macron, announced that fuel taxes would not be raised. There hasn’t been such a compelling sartorial symbol of revolt since the Sans-culottes seized on their trousers as the point of visual difference with the aristocracy during the French Revolution.

無(wú)論是誰(shuí)選擇了它(沒(méi)有人聲稱(chēng)是自己的主意，正如沒(méi)有人站出來(lái)承認(rèn)自己是運(yùn)動(dòng)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者)，無(wú)論出于何種原因，是本能抑或灼見(jiàn)，這都是一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的創(chuàng)意。事實(shí)上，它的效果好到法國(guó)總統(tǒng)埃馬紐埃爾·馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)于周二宣布燃油稅不會(huì)上漲。自從法國(guó)大革命期間無(wú)套褲漢(Sans-culottes，法國(guó)大革命時(shí)期對(duì)城市平民的稱(chēng)呼。——譯注)拿他們的褲子作為同貴族的視覺(jué)差異之后，再也沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)過(guò)如此引人注目的服裝象征符號(hào)。

That’s probably not a coincidence.

這可能不是巧合。

The yellow vest is immediately visible in all of the pictures of the protests, peaceful or not, and impossible to miss even on the small screens of social media. It is easy to slip on over any outfit, and instantly transformative. It is widely understood as a distress signal.

這件黃色背心很快就出現(xiàn)在抗議活動(dòng)的所有照片中，無(wú)論是不是和平抗議，即使在社交媒體的小屏幕上，你也不會(huì)錯(cuò)過(guò)它。它很容易套在任何服裝外面，有搖身一變的效果。它被廣泛理解為遇險(xiǎn)的信號(hào)。

It is associated with industries of the working class, like construction. And it, or a garment very much like it, has been owned by all French motorists since 2008, when a law went into effect requiring car owners to keep a high-visibility garment in their vehicle in case of problems. (Other European countries have similar laws.)

它與工人階級(jí)從事的行業(yè)有關(guān)，比如建筑業(yè)。自2008年以來(lái)，所有法國(guó)駕車(chē)者都擁有這樣一件或者同它非常類(lèi)似的服裝，當(dāng)時(shí)出臺(tái)了一條法律，要求車(chē)主在車(chē)內(nèi)放一件能見(jiàn)度高的服裝，以備出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題時(shí)使用。(其他歐洲國(guó)家也有類(lèi)似的法律。)

Little wonder the protests have spread to Belgium: The uniform of this revolution is as accessible as the frustration and fury. In Serbia, a deputy for the opposition party showed up at the parliament and warned: “We want normal gas prices, or else you’ll get yellow vests on the streets of Belgrade and Serbia.”

難怪抗議活動(dòng)會(huì)蔓延到比利時(shí)：這件革命的制服就像挫折和憤怒一樣容易傳播。在塞爾維亞，反對(duì)黨的一名代表在議會(huì)上警告說(shuō)：“我們希望汽油價(jià)格正常，否則貝爾格萊德和塞爾維亞的街道上就會(huì)出現(xiàn)黃背心。”

The vest is also notably inexpensive to acquire (available on Amazon.fr for €5.90, or about $6.70). And it’s so ubiquitous that even those who aren’t officially part of the movement can seem to take part. Witness the glee on social media when President Macron disembarked for the G-20 summit in Argentina only to be met by airport workers wearing … bright yellow hazard vests.It’s better than any soapbox. “Historically, and presently, dress practices have been and are being used to debate what it means to be a citizen, what it means to belong, or not to belong, to a certain body politic,” said Erin K. Vearncombe, a lecturer at Princeton University who specializes in the cultural anthropology of dress. “Often, these practices are used by individuals that have not been included in the body politic, to contest political structures and bring about change.”

這件背心的價(jià)格也非常低廉(Amazon.fr上售價(jià)為5.90歐元，約合6.70美元)。它無(wú)處不在，即使沒(méi)有正式參與運(yùn)動(dòng)的人也可以加入其中。馬克龍總統(tǒng)去參加在阿根廷舉行的20國(guó)集團(tuán)峰會(huì)，下機(jī)時(shí)只有機(jī)場(chǎng)工作人員迎接他，他們穿著……明亮的黃色安全背心，看看這一幕在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)上激起了多大的歡樂(lè)吧。它比任何演講臺(tái)都好。“從歷史上到現(xiàn)在，著裝已經(jīng)并且正在被用來(lái)討論公民身份究竟意味著什么，屬于或不屬于某個(gè)國(guó)民團(tuán)體究竟意味著什么，”普林斯頓大學(xué)(Princeton University)專(zhuān)門(mén)研究著裝的文化人類(lèi)學(xué)講師艾林·K·沃恩康布(Erin K. Vearncombe)說(shuō)。“通常情況下，沒(méi)有被包含在某個(gè)國(guó)民團(tuán)體之內(nèi)的個(gè)人會(huì)用這種著裝方式來(lái)抗議政治建筑，并且?guī)?lái)變革。”

Hello, Yellow Vests in their yellow vests.

你好，穿著黃背心的黃背心。

And yet it is getting harder and harder to use clothing as this kind of tool, or find the kind of clothing that can function as this kind of tool. The clear demarcations of class and values traditionally associated with dress have been eroding for a long time now, because of both the general social revolt against formality and fashion’s own tendency to co-opt and thus denature so many of what were once the outfits of the outsiders and the disenfranchised.

然而，使用服裝作為這種工具變得越來(lái)越困難，找到能發(fā)揮這種作用的服裝也越來(lái)越困難。很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間以來(lái)，傳統(tǒng)上與服裝相關(guān)的階級(jí)和價(jià)值觀的明確劃分已經(jīng)受到侵蝕，這既是因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)對(duì)俗套的普遍反對(duì)，也是因?yàn)闀r(shí)尚界自身旁征博引的傾向，許多原本屬于外來(lái)者和權(quán)利被剝奪者的服裝，性質(zhì)都發(fā)生了變化。

The torn denim and tie-dye of the hippie generation have been absorbed by street wear and the runway; the leathers and berets of 1968 embraced by Dior; the skulls and safety pins of the British punks adopted by Alexander McQueen and Versace. It’s impossible to take a garment seriously as a cry of rage or despair once it has hit the haute couture catwalk.Which is too bad, because clothes have played important supporting roles in the narrative of revolt and extremism, whether right or left, for centuries. Recently more than ever.

嬉皮士一代的破舊丹寧和扎染已經(jīng)被街頭風(fēng)和伸展臺(tái)所吸收;Dior采納了1968年的皮革和貝雷帽;Alexander McQueen和Versace使用英國(guó)朋克的骷髏和安全別針。一旦某件服裝出現(xiàn)在高級(jí)定制時(shí)裝秀里，就不可能被當(dāng)做憤怒或絕望的吶喊來(lái)認(rèn)真對(duì)待。這太糟糕了，因?yàn)閹讉€(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)，服裝在反叛和極端主義的敘事中發(fā)揮了重要的補(bǔ)充作用，無(wú)論是右派還是左派。近年來(lái)尤其如此。

The suffragists settled on color — white, green, purple — to represent their demands and characters. (As we all now know, since Hillary Clinton directly referred to the practice in her campaign.)

女性參政論者決定使用顏色——白色、綠色、紫色——來(lái)表達(dá)她們的要求和性格。(自從希拉里·克林頓[Hillary Clinton]在自己的競(jìng)選活動(dòng)中直接援引這一做法后，我們現(xiàn)在都已經(jīng)知道了。)

More recently, the pink pussy hats worn during the Women’s March in 2017 served as a visual stalking point, as did the black dresses worn at the Golden Globes in support of #TimesUp and the black garb adopted by female lawmakers at President Trump’s first State of the Union. The black boots, sweats, pants and ski masks of the Antifa movement are a more broad-based and free-floating signifier of anarchy.Still, black is so ubiquitous and so open to interpretation, it somewhat undermines its ability to be an effective protest garment. It’s momentarily powerful but not specific enough for the effects to linger. That explains, in part, why “many of these practices do not translate into the nomenclature of the movements in the way that yellow vests did, pretty much immediately,” Dr. Vearncombe said.

更近一些的事件發(fā)生在2017年的女性大游行上，人們戴著粉紅色貓耳帽作為視覺(jué)關(guān)注點(diǎn);還有在金球獎(jiǎng)上的女星，她們身穿黑裙，支持網(wǎng)上的“#TimesUp”(是時(shí)候了)活動(dòng);以及特朗普發(fā)表第一次國(guó)情咨文時(shí)身穿黑色服裝的女性議員。反法西斯(Antifa)運(yùn)動(dòng)中的黑色靴子、衛(wèi)衣、長(zhǎng)褲和滑雪口罩，是一種較泛泛的、自由發(fā)散的無(wú)政府主義表征。不過(guò)，黑色無(wú)處不在，它可以有各種解釋?zhuān)@有點(diǎn)損害了它作為抗議服裝的效果。它擁有短暫的力量，但不足以讓效果在你心頭縈繞不去。沃恩康布說(shuō)，這有助于解釋為什么“許多這類(lèi)做法并沒(méi)有像黃色背心那樣，幾乎立即轉(zhuǎn)化為運(yùn)動(dòng)的代名詞。”

You can count such transcendent wardrobe totems on one hand: the Sans-culottes, the Brownshirts. (It may seem wrong to lump the Brownshirts with the others, but it was a political movement identified by clothing.) So what made the difference?

像這樣超凡出眾的圖騰式服裝屈指可數(shù)：無(wú)套褲漢、褐衫隊(duì)(希特勒于1923年創(chuàng)建的武裝組織。——譯注)。(將褐衫隊(duì)與其他服裝混為一談似乎不妥，但它是一場(chǎng)由服裝命名的政治運(yùn)動(dòng)。)那么究竟是什么造成了不同?

In part, the accessibility of the yellow vest itself. But the decentralized nature of the movement also probably played a part, making the vests even more important as a unifying thread and call to arms.Protest movements without such a uniform seem to be the exception in modern times, and can be less effective for it. Occupy Wall Street, in 2011 lacked a visual cohesion. Protesters had many looks, a sprawl that was mirrored in the range of their grievances.

在某種程度上，這是來(lái)自黃色背心本身的親和力。但是運(yùn)動(dòng)的分散性本質(zhì)可能也有作用，這使得背心更加重要，成了一種統(tǒng)一的線(xiàn)索和戰(zhàn)斗號(hào)令。沒(méi)有這種制服的抗議活動(dòng)在現(xiàn)代似乎很少見(jiàn)，并且正因如此，可能效果也比較差。2011年的占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)就缺乏視覺(jué)凝聚力。抗議者的外觀多種多樣，這種雜亂反映出他們的不滿(mǎn)情緒也是多種多樣的。

“The dressed body within the body politic is often the only opportunity underrepresented individuals have to participate in negotiations of citizenship, but it’s an amazing opportunity, too,” Dr. Vearncombe said. “It is every day, it is participatory, it is collaborative and democratic.”

“在政治體中，著裝的身體往往是缺乏代表的個(gè)體參與公民身份談判的唯一機(jī)會(huì)，”沃恩康布說(shuō)。“它是日常的，它是參與的，它是協(xié)作和民主的。”

It should not really come as a surprise that France — the country that spawned the Sans-culottes, where la mode is considered part of the culture and the patrimony as well as an instrument of regime change — understands this.

法國(guó)是產(chǎn)生無(wú)套褲漢的國(guó)家，時(shí)尚被認(rèn)為是文化和遺產(chǎn)的一部分，以及政權(quán)更迭的工具，這個(gè)國(guó)家能夠理解這一點(diǎn)是毫不意外的。

It is not an accident that during the most recent Yellow Vests riot, the windows of French stores like Chanel and Dior were smashed. (Ironically, in 2008, when the yellow vest law was first introduced, the Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld appeared in an ad touting its lifesaving capabilities.)A dress for a dress. Once again clothes have come to represent the difference between the haves and the have-nots.

在最近的黃背心騷亂期間，Chanel和Dior等品牌的商店櫥窗被砸碎，也不是偶然的。(具有諷刺意味的是，2008年首次引入黃背心法時(shí)，Chanel設(shè)計(jì)師卡爾·拉格菲爾德[Karl Lagerfeld]曾經(jīng)在廣告中宣傳它救人性命的能力。)以眼還眼，以衣還衣。服裝再一次呈現(xiàn)了富人和窮人之間的差異。