An Anthropology of the Shallow and Boring - musings from the fieldnotes

[I rediscovered this entry dated on 2nd Oct 2011 while revisiting my fieldnotes recently. I find the condescending tones here amusing, which perhaps reflect the frustration that I was experiencing in fieldwork then. Since this is unlikely to get to anywhere else, I thought I’d just share it for people’s amusement. It’s obvious that I felt a bit smug about coming up with this metaphor at that time; but now I realize it was probably a metaphor of Geertz's surfacing from my subconscious.]

 

    The work of an anthropologist is like observing a Monopoly card game or 三国杀, not knowing the rules and trying to figure out them. All the players in the game know the rules by their heart, though perhaps to varying degrees of skillfulness. The small booklet explaining the rules of the game that comes with the set has now been misplaced, and the puzzled anthropologist looks at how players deal the cards and move on the game. They are enjoying themselves, thinking, strategizing, plotting against each other, and carrying out actions. They laugh and banter among themselves; but the observer feels lost. The rules can be fairly complicated, and on the cards are strange and colorful symbols which are part of the rules; and sometimes the function of a card is written on the card itself. But the anthropologist, observing the game over people’s shoulders and being distracted by players’ exclamations and bantering, cannot see clearly what’s written on the cards. His task is to figure out, as far as possible, the rules that govern the players’ actions.
    Intellectually, the game is shallow and boring; and the anthropologist feels this by instinct. But until he has figured out the rules, he is actually the most vulnerable and stupid among them all. The anthropologist knows that the players are also boring and shallow: their laughter, their banters…all quite trifle; but even for the boring and shallow, some rules govern their actions; and until the anthropologist uncovers those rules—they may not be stable but rather dynamic rules that are re-/constructed on the go—he cannot dismiss them. He has to produce an account adequate enough to explain the players’ behaviors; he is an anthropologist of the shallow and boring, but his understanding is neither shallow nor boring.

从对“纯粹”的追求说起: 听牛津中国学联“思享之周”讲座系列的一点杂感

 

        加藤嘉一先生在他的“走出教育”演讲中指出他认为的中国高等教育的一个主要问题：即行政化、官本位、“老师不像老师”、“学生不像学生”、“都去争当官了不搞学术了”云云。

        笔者虽不曾在中国高等院校学习工作，但也相信这是很到位、恳切地批评。领导南方科技大学教育改革的朱时清院士的最主要目标亦是摆脱行政化的束缚、打造一流的研究型大学。他认为，中国的大学的运作模式还是官方的行政机构，而不是以学术活动为中心的学术机构；改革就是要把行政权力拒之一臂之外，实现“教授治校”，还大学以其本来面目、宗旨。换言之，和加藤先生的论点相同，目的是让学术机构变得更“纯粹”。

        陈有西律师、贺卫方教授关于中国法治的讲座，如果从以上视角解读，其实也可以说是对中国法制体系的更“纯粹化”的诉求。有法不依、执法不力、法律变成实现政治目的工具等等批判其实也就是在批判中国法制体系没有发挥它应有的功能、扮演它应该扮演的角色。法制体系也不“纯粹”。

        诸多这些对“纯粹”的追求都是最积极、最善意的；几位实干家的热忱和身体力行的作风也着实让人钦佩不已。但是，同时，我们若能也从学理的角度把这个“纯粹”分析一番，了解其复杂性与相对性，或许能更加切乎实际地开展将来的理解和实践。

        对于一个社会机构（social institution）例如教育体系、法制体系、高教体系，有某种特定的功能上的期待可以说是社会学人类学中“结构功能主义”(structural functionalism)的一种体现。人们认为教育体系的功能就是教书育人，而高等教育体系的功能还包括搞学术研究，法制体系的功能是裁判社会纠纷、维持社会秩序、彰显社会正义；而这种种不同的社会机构犹如人身体的不同器官，相互配合，相互作用，使得整个社会能够有序地运转下去。社会的有序运转成为最高的、终极的目标，其它下属社会机构发挥各自功能，为这一终极目标服务。（也就是以前说的“每个人都是社会主义大厦上的一颗螺丝钉”。）在这种理解下，不同的社会机构自然有了它的一个“纯粹”的形态——也就是完成它应该完成的任务——而人们对不“纯粹”的形态和做法进行抨击。这个理解其实没有错误，只是略为片面。

        费孝通在他著名的“差序格局”的论述中指出，中国的社会格局“好像把一块石头丢在水面上所发生的一圈圈推出去的波纹。每个人都是他社会影响所推出去的圈子的中心。被圈子的波纹所推及的就发生联系。每个人在某一时间某一地点所动用的圈子是不一定相同的”。这造成了在中国“他”和“己”的范围变得相对化、不固定、能伸能缩的情况。“范围的大小也要依着中心的努力厚薄而定”。费孝通举例说：大家族如《红楼梦》中描述的，“凡是拉得上亲戚的，都包容得下。可是势力一变，树倒猢狲散，缩成一小团。”

        如果我们把这种对社会关系伸缩性的理解方式应用到社会机构上，那么我们可以提出：具体社会机构（例如：教育、高教、法制体系）在作为更大的一个社会的组成部分的同时，它自己也是一个社会；当我们的分析视线聚焦到这个具体的社会机构上时，这个社会机构就成为中心，而它的持续运转就成为最高的、终极的目标；至于它还能不能达到人们和社会赋予它的“纯粹”的功能，已经是次要的了。也就是说，原来我们认为只是一个器官的社会机构，现在，在倍数不同的显微镜下，成为了一个以自我为中心的生态系统，别有洞天。在这个生态系统里，又有各式各样的下属机构，各自发挥功能，目的就是维持这个系统的运转。这个机构的运转就成为了压倒一切的目的，正如前面说的社会的运转被认为是压倒一切的目的。这个生态系统遵循一套自己的行为规则、秩序。所以，譬如“中国的高等教育简直就是乱了套了”、“中国的法制体系简直没有法则”这样的说法就不准确了。不是没有法则，只不过是说这个社会机构现在运行的法则和我们想象的、理想的、“纯粹”的运行方式不一样罢了。大家都知道任何社会机构中都有着一套严密的“潜规则”，世俗上成功的人常常就是精于这一套潜规则。

        当然，这里我决不是为我们认为不好的、道德上让人不能接受的社会“潜规则”作辩护。我的目的只是从学理的角度来说明，任何社会机构都要从它的外部功能（也就是“纯粹”的一面）和它的内部有机性与完整性（也就是它“自成一体”的一面）两个视角来相对地观察、理解。

        那么这个自成一体的运行方式有一些什么特征呢？

        杜维明教授在他的演讲中提到了亚当斯密所推崇的“经济人”（homo economicus）的说法。亚当斯密认为，人从根本上是追求经济利益的动物，只要实行自由主义，让人按照自己利益最大化的目标去行事，便可以达到社会的最繁荣，因为会有一双“看不见的手”来规制人们的行为，使得他们的行为在个人利益最大化的同时也顾及整个社会（即其它的“个人”）的利益。但在强调“经济人”的时候，我们是否忽视了人性的另外重要一面，即所谓的“等级人”（homo hierarchicus）？“等级人”的观点强调，人类社会是必然形成等级秩序、等级关系的；甚至可以进一步说，人其实是有服从等级制度，甚至认同等级制度的倾向的一种动物。

        在通常的“社会角色”/“社会分工”的语境下，我们较能够理解角色间的互补互惠关系；但说到“等级制度”，我们总觉得有不公平、压迫、剥削的意思，但其实两者间没有本质区别：等级制度是角色分工体系的一种狭义的、极端的形态。也就是说，等级关系的背后仍然是利益的双向授受，与社会角色间的利益授受同理。这个关系模式可以理解为一个金字塔结构和一个循环结构的复合体，金字塔代表等级秩序，循环代表利益互动关系。学生要拍导师马屁，可是导师也要成全学生，否则他将来“导”谁呢？学生在年轻阶段要做“廉价劳动力”，给“老板”打工，甚至自己的研究成果要冠导师名；不过等学生熬成了导师，他便也可以再“压榨”自己的学生，享受胜利的果实了。日本职场中的“年功序列”也是一个道理，才出道的做牛做马，熬出头的坐享其成；不过，才出道的有一天也会熬出头的。这种等级制度下的权利授受的周期很长，但绝对不是一个利益单方向流动的体系，因为单向流动与社会组织的根本原则相抵触。抗议各种“潜规则”不公的人其实是抗议这个利益循环周期太长，而想在较短的周期内实现自我利益的兑现，所谓“任人唯贤”（meritocracy）就是要将个人才能最快地转化成为现实利益。

        最后，回到前面对社会机构的分析：在这个“别有洞天”的社会机构生态系统里，以上的这些原则大致决定了系统里的角色的行为方式。但是，最大的前提是，必须有外部输送进来的利益，作为这个生态系统运行的原材料和原动力。直白地说，也就是外面要给系统一块大蛋糕，系统里面的人才能按照high table, low table, senior common room, junior common room这些规则来分蛋糕；外面要给一个球，系统里面的人才能按自己的规则踢。只要这个蛋糕/球一直源源不断地有，这个生态系统里面的既得利益者就会维护现有规则。当有一天蛋糕没有了，或者球从足球换成橄榄球，才可能让社会机构内部运行机制彻底大洗牌。

        只有当一个特定社会机构自成一体的运行严重威胁到整个社会的运行时，才可能发生转变。但是机构自成一体的运行对整个社会的运行的影响往往又不是完全负面的，就好比公款吃喝也让中国餐饮业大发展，创造了无数的就业，从某种程度上说也是维护了社会的运转。

        社会的运行和人在这运行中发挥的短暂功能，究其究竟，是无意义的。日本影片《砂之女》中有一个情节正可以用来做比喻：在沙漠的一个大坑里，住着一个人；每天，风把一定量的沙吹进坑里；坑里这个人每天铲沙，把那些吹进来的沙运出去，这样她的小房子不被覆盖；日复一日，年复一年，成为生命的全部内容。同理，社会的意义也在于不断地运转，别无其它；而社会上的个人在这个运行中发挥一点功能，换一口饭吃，赢得安身立命的一隅，转瞬即逝。当前对“中国模式”的信心就来源于似乎用与西方不同的方式也能够让社会运转下去这么一个观察；想改革中国运转方式的人必须从根本上证明中国目前的运转方式会出问题，而不是简单地借西方话语中的几面大旗（人权、名著、法治），说比中国优越；能否拿的出这些证据，就要看改革倡导者们的本事了！

The sand as a metaphor for the society. Watching the Japanese film The Woman of the Dunes (1964)

I must confess that I always watch black-and-white films with some pain and difficulty. If the film is primarily a visual art, which it undoubtedly is, then the primacy of colour and visual effects cannot be denied, and consequently it is perhaps not entirely unacceptable to profess a preference for the visual abundance and dynamism offered by the colourful cinema. The Woman of the Dunes (1964 砂の女) is a notable exception in this regard for me, as I seem to have enjoyed this one in spite of its black-whiteness.

    This is a film very rich in abstract metaphorism and symbolism, but which manages to be visceral and very sensually affective at the same time. There can be many competing interpretations of the film, but I personally suspect that the ‘traditional society vs modernity’ version is likely to be the most obvious and prominent. The woman who lives in the dunes is a martyr of the enclosed, self-sustaining traditional society, a sacrifice to the feudal values of patriarchy and rootedness. The Woman repeatedly refers to the outside world by invoking Tokyo, the symbol of burgeoning modernity in post-War Japan. The reference to the co-operative (組み合い) run by the village chiefs (all men) also hints to the survival struggle of rural, traditional community against the sweep of modernising forces.

     But what really sparked off in my mind was a slightly different interpretation, where the portrayal of the quality of sand is pivotal. After the entomologist has fallen into the trap set up by the villagers, he tries hard to climb out of the sand pit. But his efforts are in vain – sand does not support weights; it slides, it collapses, it flows almost like water. One cannot apply force to sand in order to ascend; but sand can bury, and kill, without a trace. At the end of the film, the entomologist is declared a missing person, and the outside world would have assumed that he has been gorged by the dunes. He ceases to exist, and his identity evaporates. This is exactly the working of the society.

     The sand is thus a perfect metaphor for the society itself. In front of the society, any personal struggle is in vain. You cannot apply force to the society; the harder you struggle, the worse the consequences. The society has an enormity – as reflected by the depiction of the dunes in the film which dries any last bit of hope – and a destructiveness that has no respect whatsoever for individuality or personality, just as the identity of the protagonist is eradicated.

     The hut in the sand pit, with a couple who did not come together by their volition, living a purposeless, repetitive life is a fitting metaphor for Life itself. The sand dunes are the society, they are shifting, but also eternal; you find a pit, built a makeshift hut, live with someone until you both die, that is life. When you die, someone else takes your place in the pit, live in the hut; or the sand will fill the pit, erasing any marks you’ve left behind you. The entomologist initially hopes to have his name entered into the Encyclopedia by discovering a rare species of insect in the desert, but he ends up in an identity-less life in the dunes…isn’t this the metaphor for all our lives? We try to achieve things, and leave marks in this world, to prove that we’ve been here, and that we’ve done x, y, z…but don't be stupid!

     The human condition could not have been better symbolised by the fact that in order to keep on living in their hut, the couple has to shovel sand out daily to keep themselves from being eventually buried under. ‘Isn’t this pointless’, asks the entomologist to the Woman. Exactly! It is pointless, but the greatest philosophical wisdom perhaps is realising life’s pointless and still living it earnestly. Religions around the world of all times have concocted all kinds of fanciful stories to mask over this essentially pointless life – that shovelling of sand out from one’s pit so that you can keep on doing exactly the same the next day – but that is not philosophy, that’s deception. To be truly philosophical is to know that the society is exactly like the sand, and that your duty in this transient passing-through is to keep on shovelling sand until you die, decompose, and become part of the eternal sand dunes.