小学妹论样板戏

小学妹发来电邮，从自己学京剧的经验出发，纠正了我许多偏见。特此转载，供启心智：

熊学长，

也许我的观点是带有偏见的，就像你的也必然带有某种偏见一样，因为我现在在学京剧，而你虽然听过，但毕竟没有学过，也没有琢磨过吧？虽然我承认“样板戏”的产生带有浓厚的政治意图，但就此对它进行否定，这难道不是一种偏见吗？样板戏有没有将芭蕾与京剧（京剧跟京戏严格上来说是不同的概念）结合我不敢断定，但在我看来，除了加入交响乐的伴奏，它主要还是京剧。怎么说，就是最初的八个样板戏有京剧（像《沙家浜》），也有芭蕾舞剧（像《红色娘子军》），后来《红色娘子军》被改编成了京剧，它就有两个版本：一个芭蕾舞剧版本，一个京剧版本，而不是二合为一变成一个《红色娘子军》，因此，“撮合芭蕾与京戏的表演形式本身，也是江青等人的政治伎俩”，我提出第一个反驳。再者，以京剧作为宣传某种思想的媒介，样板戏不是第一个。早在抗战时期，当红的京剧名家们就排演了各个以抗日抗战为题材的京剧，如梅兰芳先生的《梁红玉》、《穆桂英挂帅》、程砚秋先生的《春闺梦》等等。还有更早的，如梅先生主演的现代戏《一缕麻》，控诉的是“父母之命，媒妁之言”的包办婚姻制度。这不完全政治，但我想说的是，京剧与现实社会的结合不是始于江青和样板戏的。

记得我一年级的时候，你曾对我说过，很难理解中国人怎么可以在十年的时间内就看八个样板戏。我当时也不解，但开始接触京剧之后才发现，没问题的。简单地说，样板戏有原唱，但在各剧场现场表演的时候，可以由不同的剧团、不同的演员来演唱。以京剧为例，我老师曾说过，听京剧，是“听人不听戏”。就拿《沙家浜》来说吧，整出戏我看过3个不同剧团（原唱、上京院二团、广东京团）的演出，而其中的唱段、折子就不止这个数了。也许你很难理解，但不同演员不同流派唱出来的东西真的很不一样的。

当然，对于样板戏中一些过于夸张或政治化的“有了毛主席的领导”、“我们共产党”、“啊毛主席啊”之类的台词我是不喜欢的，觉得很做作。但是，样板戏对于京剧的发展还是有做出一定的贡献的，至少它为日后创编现代戏提供了模板（虽然我看过几出现代戏，都没有样板戏好），也为交响乐进入京剧开创了先例，更具有普及意义（因为样板戏没有一个用韵白的，都是用普通话）。

还有，你说“情愿这种历史形式不再被胡乱改变或搬演，因为其背后的历史沉重感，恰恰是其意义与价值之所在”，这个我不太明白。但如果什么都因为历史沉重感而不能演了、不能修改、不能改编了，那京剧大概就真的作古了。不是吗？二三十年代的戏大多都是为那个时代而创作或改编的，提倡妇女解放的、推广新文化的、反封建的、抗战的，哪一个不是与时偕行的？没有人说京剧是可以胡乱改变的，直至今日，人们在改编京剧的时候都没有忘记梅先生“移步不换行”的理念。

最后，关于样板戏有没有“多大的空间去享受自身独立的‘艺术’资格”，我觉得是有的。以我热爱京剧的偏见，我觉得是有的。别的样板戏我还不太能推荐，但有时间希望你去看看《沙家浜》，它的唱词、旋律、戏剧冲突真的非常精彩，而且也不会太过communist。怎么说，我觉得京剧本身没有错，戏本身也没有错。毕竟，它只是一个媒介，一个表演的形式。就像那个《智取威虎山》我忘了是改编自那一篇小说的，但要说《智取威虎山》有错，它有错吗？把一部小说塞进一个只有两个小时左右的京剧，what more can you ask for？去年的京剧节上那个…陕西京剧团（？）不就把《雷雨》改编成京剧吗？京剧《雷雨》中的夸张，你能说它有错吗？要符合一个艺术表演形式的特点，有错吗？也许正如家铭所说的，每一种艺术表演形式都有它可笑的地方。但不能因此就说它对还是错，有艺术资格还是没有艺术资格。

说了那么多，我也有点语无伦次了。其实我想说的是，就像你自己说过的，读文学要回到文本，看样板戏也要回到京剧。我还没看样板戏之前对它的印象是很坏的，认为它们剥夺断送了多少演员、编剧、导演的艺术生命，甚至害死了多少伟大的艺术家！但坐下来好好把它们当中较为经典的唱词认真读一遍，发现它的优美，仔细地听上几遍，发现它的魅力。也许你会觉得很不可思议，但就是在文革中受到迫害的诸多艺术家们，也很喜欢当中的唱段，并没有因为政治压迫而否定它的艺术价值。希望你也不要否定它…至少今年的国际文化节不要唾弃鄙视在台上表演《智斗》的你的小学妹……

当然，在长些智慧的同时，我总觉得自己还未全然释怀，于是再次思考为何当初会对样板戏的“复苏”感到某种隐忧。于是，作了以下回应：

小学妹：

Thanks for that, it was VERY inspiring. 在很多方面，特别从艺术史的角度上来对这个问题的阐释，让我学到很多。

也许，许多的艺术类型本是这样，首先具有政治目的，然后不断简化其意识形态，直到成为观念中的“纯艺术”。而也许对真正懂戏的“内行”来说，反而更有一种去包容的胸襟。也许，不论你、我或者是原文的作者，都没有一定的对错，只是站在艺术转换与发展线条上的不同点。在这一点上，之前的”随便点评“有欠公允，这我承认。=)

但站在我的立场来看，有些时候，我会很好奇的是为何样板戏会再次”重现“当下。也许，如你所说，如果是”看人不看戏“，或是样板戏作为戏剧发展史上的一种形式，那么我想我能够接受，毕竟就是一种艺术的享受。然而有些时候，我想我对艺术的看法是，不只是单纯地将”文本“与”意识形态“进行区分，还要从全方位地看那是否具有某种disinterested aesthetics，判断其是为”美“而作，或是为其他目的。

也许，我至今还未说清楚的隐忧是：样板戏的现代复兴，背后是否有着任何的其他意图？就如你们的表演，为何就是”智斗“，而不选择其他的形式？也许，我也正将自己栓在一个分不清艺术及其意识形态与政治意图的窠臼中，只不过之前是以艺术类型来宣扬某种政治意图，而当下我担忧的恰恰是其复苏会变相地再次形成一股政治宣传风。也许，你会说，即使是表演历史更悠久的京剧曲目，不一定就”纯粹“，但我想，样板戏终究离我们太近，而像我这个”看热闹“的”外行“，也许在乎的是这种艺术形式——这样一种还未真正于”集体记忆“中与政治脱钩的表演形式，在一个时间点上大量地重现的这个趋势。

换言之，你和原文作者都是从艺术的”内部形式“出发，希望能够正视样板戏自身的意义与生命力，是在艺术领域谈问题；而我担忧的，则是其”外部影响“，是从社会学的领域在看问题。这两者之间是有着辩证关系的——从学科划分来说，文学这学科也许会希望把焦点拉回艺术内部形式本身，并希望以此来影响大众对样板戏的看法。但是，艺术本身在社会上的传播，也是要考虑的问题。这也是为何毛泽东特别关注艺术，从延安文艺座谈会到胡风事件到反右运动到文革，都直接参与其中。

当我看到《早报》的文章时，也许立即跳进我脑海中的闪念是：样板戏本身比起早期京戏，也许更加地permeable to political influence and use。样板戏的复苏，会不会是打着复兴”纯艺术“形式的旗号来变相达到别的政治宣传意图？而如果是，说”错的不是戏“，试图加快样板戏在民间的传播，是否在间接地帮助这种”政治阴谋“？就像你刚刚告诉我的这一切，是否能够化为一种遏制政治再次利用样板戏的抵抗力？这其中的问题还在于，取决艺术的意义的，不只是艺人、观众或艺术形式本身，还有一股你难以去琢磨其渗透性的政治力量。

因此，站在文学学科内谈问题时，我会努力并鼓励你们去重视文本。但当活着当下，当一种艺术形式切切实实地渗透进生命之中，从学科角度来看，就是一个社会学乃至政治学的问题。而当下自己由于天天接触的是社会科学，尽管明了文学的纯粹，正如你所纠正我的那样，但毕竟还是会担忧艺术传播背后所隐含的意识形态讯息。从艺术与文学的窗口看出来，这是非常可怕并值得否定的；但从社会学的角度看，这恰恰是必须正视的”常态“。而说这么多，尽管不知你了不了解我的担忧，但我根本的归宿，还是在于艺术之纯粹的。因此，我很珍惜你为我补充的细节，也能够帮助我排除对样板戏的偏见，却无法真正消解我对这个艺术形式再次崛起并迅速重新的社会趋势的隐忧。

估计，我是受到了港大教育学系对power and discourses的过度影响了。但与此同时，我也逐渐明白过去四年中文系教育所忽略的：当我们只是一味地否定”艺术为政治服务“，我们只是诉诸一种common sense knowledge，却从未真正地去解析其背后的原因。100年的现当代文学，纠结在这个“政治与文学”的问题上，而本科教育却从未认真地去对待它，甚至解构它。只因为，学科的划分，造成了文学、历史、社会学的分野，而文学的外部研究（如京剧的传播），在学科观念中应该是隶属社会学的；但社会学，却鲜少去在乎这个环节，因为凡与艺术挂钩的，本应是隶属文学院的。这就造成了一种学科划分而导致的research gaps，而需要跨学科领域的研究，但在中国，这种做法还未非常普遍。当然，这已牵涉到另一个问题，就不多谈了。


也许，有人会质疑我把私人信件公开的企图。说实在的，真的没有别的用意，只是觉得自己所学到的、自己所想到的，就应该坦诚布公，与天下人分享。毕竟，任何阶段的学习和领悟，只是某个时间点上的产物，不足以评判一个人的个性或慧根。而且，从个人的哲学来看，正符合本博客“白心于人前”的姿态；从我一辈子立足于的教师本位，亦可称“诲人不倦”——这样说自己也许有些不要脸，但此乃本熊之“王子病”也……

【联合早报】正确认识中国而“高兴”

正确认识中国而“高兴”

（2009-04-07）

● 谭中

　　今年初出版的两本有关中国的名噪一时、牵动人心的新书，一本是美国马里兰大学两位经济学家，印裔顾普多（Anil Gupta）和华裔王海燕（译音）合著的英文书Getting China and India Right：Strategies for Leveraging the World's Fastest Growing Economies for Global Advantage(《正确看待中国和印度：认清符合全球利益的世界增長最快经济的杠杆作用》)；另一本是宋晓军、王小东等五名中国作家合著的中文书《中 国不高兴》。

　　两本书都是警钟雷鸣。英文书要《财富》首千名大公司认识中国和印度的四大“改变游戏规则的现实”（减低生产成本，“巨型增 长”的“巨型市场”，两国是发明创新的“发射台”，是使（全球）企业界上升到更高、更新能力的“跳板”），警告它们：“有谁不权衡中国和印度崛起的杠杆作 用而自我变型，它就有在今后十至十五年中被淘汰或失去独立的危险。”中文书警告统治精英：“西方人的自以为是，是被我们（中国人）惯出来的”；又以“撕破 西方的面纱”、“不能任由美国绑架世界”、“持剑经商”、“在这个世界除暴安良”等劫持国际舆论。

　　本文试图借用英文书名“正确看待中国”来评论中文书《中国不高兴》。它所提出的根本问题是：中国在当今世界如何“做人处世”？中国应该向怎样的目标发展？要回答这两个问题，首先得认识中国究竟是个什么国家，和别国不同之处在哪儿？

一个强大的统治中心

　 　在欧亚大陆两端、同样历史悠久，中国和欧洲发展规律迥异。欧洲是集小国的大成，从古到20世纪上半叶始终沉浸在烽火与硝烟气氛之中，更是发起两次世界大 战的祸首。中国相对地和谐稳定，数千年来是一个大同“天下”，现在更是一统江山、重振雄威、蒸蒸日上的新兴大国——一个中国抵几十个欧洲国家。

　 　欧洲内部在不同时期由不同强权中心向外扩张、试图统一欧洲而不成功。欧洲历史发展的动力是从中心向外扩张、争夺欧洲霸权与海外势力范围。中国历史发展的 动力却来自四面八方，共同维持一个中国的局面。在欧洲是河水引起国际纠纷或者划定国界，在中国却不然。世界十大河流，长江第三，黄河第六或第七，从来就属 于中国，从来就没有任何国家要求分享。

　　中国是地球上唯一的、由生态环境动力形成的“泛两河（黄河与长江）流域灌溉农业共同生存繁荣国家 ”，外来民族纷至沓来共享中国的相对经济繁荣、社会稳定与文化发达。普林斯顿大学经济历史学家麦迪逊（Angus Maddison）统计：从公元50至960年，中国人口是全球的六分之一，从1280至1700年上升到四分之一，1820年更是全球三分之 一，1995年是全球五分之一。中国生存与发展的规律是：人类众志成城到神州大地来创造并建设一个和谐的“共享”集体。

　　这亿万人“共享 ”的强大愿望又要容纳亿万“人往高处走”的个人要求，两者形成矛盾的统一。使这样一个宇宙式的国家正常运作只能采取太阳系模式：众星围绕光芒四射的强大统 治中心进行公转，西方历史学家称它为“开明专政”（enlightened despotism）。在一般正常的“治世”，平民拥护缺点众多的政府，政府实在太坏就“起义”推翻它，另起炉灶。人民永远希望政府完美，政府永远无法满 足人民愿望，中国永远寻求自我完善。

受强权政治流毒影响？

这样一个人类“大国”不但不到全世界称霸，也根本没有什么“国际战略”或“外交政策”。19世纪英帝国主义最恼火的是：中国（北京）政府没有外交部，英国官员只能通过两国商人间接和两广总督衙门打交道。鸦片战争以后，是英国人强迫中国在首都设立“外交大臣”的。

　 　满清、北洋军阀与民国时代中国落后、挨打的教训是惨痛的，但是在中华人民共和国建国六十周年的今天世界局势起了翻天覆地的变化，虽然“中华民族到了最危 险的时候”仍然天天在唱，但中国那些“强国论坛”、“强国社区”、“强国博客”多半是讨论如何完善中国和谐“共享”集体内部的具体问题，不是要求变成超级 大国去世界称霸。

　　中国饱受西方成见歧视应该“不高兴”，中国头脑受西方文明腐蚀也应医治。西方文明的基本旋律是“使强力无穷大 ”（maximization of power），西方文明几千年自相残杀、西方国家近世纪兴盛以及今天全球“强力”（power）集中到如日中天的美国又开始西斜，这些都是“强力政治 ”（power politics）所致，对中国的生存与发展不是补药而是毒药。《中国不高兴》以及它的“前身”——1996年出版的《中国可以说不》——服了这毒药没有 呢？什么叫“做英雄国家”，“拯救全人类”呀！？

　　书的一位作者认为中国“人多资源少”，生存竞争激烈就是“虎狼社会”，“太幸福就成了 弱者，我就得把他变成虎狼”。人们不禁想起2004年开始的中国社会关于“狼文化”与“羊文化”的争论，特别由华为公司领头在企业界闹得沸沸扬扬。 2007年初问世的《怀念羊》长篇小说和中国文学中那一大“狼”群（《狼图腾》、《狼道》、《狼魂》、《酷狼》、《像狼一样思考》等等），不知谁胜谁负。 据说这“狼文化”的灵感出自美国“aggressiveness”，它今天把包括美国在内的整个世界害得好惨！中国难道还要向“虎狼社会”前进吗？

　 　“不论是否担得动”中国都“必须领导世界走出这场（金融）危机”，这是唐吉诃德精神呀！《中国不高兴》真有点像黄种人背起吉卜林的“白种人的包袱”。但 我们看到：中国是充满希望的国家，中国人希望、但不坚持样样十全十美。“不高兴”的中国人永不舍弃对内并不完美、对外委曲求全的祖国——他们还是“高兴” 的。

文发自芝加哥

Response to SoE essay: letter (2)

Some points of thoughts:

1) 文以载道：“道”在新加坡也有两面性：新加坡人的道和华人的道 —— National Education and Chinese Morals. 我们要教的东西很累赘哦。尤其当我们有时也很难分辨什么是文化，什么是道德，还是两者是交汇的。

You raised a good point, and an important one which I have not been able to deal adequate with depth in my paper. As I was reading, a big issue we have is the formulation of our "five shared values" by a group of Chinese scholars from the West like 余时英 and 杜维明, passed in Parliament in 1991. It's based on Confucianism, though scholars tended to call it "plastic Confucianism" aka "fake". Chinese textbooks developed in 1992 had to evolve around these five shared values as the main curriculum framework (this has been reduced in intensity since 2004). Herein lies a big controversy because on one hand, shared values were supposed to be for the nation, regardless of race; on the other, because its roots are in Chinese culture, the Chinese subject tends to intensify it in teaching. The dilemma then arises as to the two 道, but look deeper and perhaps what we need to understand is how the current "NE morals" have borrowed and evolved from "Chinese morals", and seeing the bigger picture, how the PAP ideologies in education have constrained the "Chinese culture" taught in our CL lessons. Now, some CL teachers say, the focus of Chinese lessons should be on language, and feel that if they were asked to teach culture and other related stuff, it gets too heavy. Well I can understand their concerns, but I think it's time we reversed the logic of our thinking and see that the content of teaching ultimately determines learning motivation of language, and that language teaching is brought out as a product of content teaching about culture and identity. I would say at least this should be the case at secondary and post-sec levels. My own theory based on speaking with teachers is this: children don't speak Mandarin because they are not confident; they don't read because they freak out at the sight of Chinese characters, and because we have never taught them reading strategies - which, in order not to become staunch exam techniques, have to be built upon the process of content understanding; they don't write because they don't have sufficient life experiences and also because our exams have constrained the scope of writing too much. The learning of a language ultimately has to be self-motivated, because as we all know, there is really no "knowledge" in the language itself. You have to cross that psychological barrier, and then want to understand and express some thought, before you go and pick up the language. Fundamentally this should be the way our CL education proceeds. At MOE, I believe the new secondary CL curriculum will be a progressive step towards this, based on the initial plans I have heard, plus because the director （陈之权老师） and deputy director （陈志锐老师）at SCCL are quite liberal-minded. But I think we need to spark a debate of some sort, and then hear what teachers have to say. They - ourselves included - determine the course of action.


2）我非常非常欣赏你的 ——So the aim of basic education should not be to provide answers. Rather it should be to learn some facts, then do 2 things: 1) stimulate questions that need not be answered right away; 2) helping students maintain the curiosity to find out the answer(s) as they grow older. 因为许多老师——无论是不是中文老师——对于这些接近意识心态的问题都是充满困惑的。例如，一个学生过来问我为什么要学习中文。我定然也是哑口无言。不是我不要把官方的”天经地义“或者”经济价值“搬出来，而是既然是从我口中出来的话，我可不希望听起来有任何的心虚。因此我可能会选择沉默。况且，适用于甲的熊掌，到了乙的口中可能就是要人命的砒霜了。我想我会告诉他们老师自己的疑惑吧。可是，我又害怕他们没有一个坚定的榜样。哈哈。没事，我需要教教才明了。


3）我从来就不觉得我们和中国华人是一样的。我想在上海的四年，他不但然我更了解上海，还让我更了解我们作为新加坡人的这个身份。在我们谈论singaporean chinese的此时，我认为singaporean chinese 本来就已经在与中国人的语言和意识形态上的分歧之间存在。可是，复杂的事，Singaporean Chinese本身就是一个错综的族群。我们的向心力在哪里？是实质的中华文化吗？还是虚设的中华文化？是宗教吗？是语言吗？我觉得都不是也。可能Singaporean Chinese当中的不同族群（eg. Taoists，Ang Moh Speaking Christian Chinese）有自己不同的向心力，但作为一个整体，我觉得我们的向心力除了可见的肤色之外，可 能就是新加坡人的身份。Are we more Singaporean or more Chinese? We are definitely more singaporean. Just that the Chinese-ness qualities do contribute to the making of the singaporean identity.

That is a very good point as well, the dynamism between national identity and Chinese identity. Perhaps one of the greatest possible loopholes in using Wang Gungwu's framework in my essay is to see national identity as part of Chinese identity. This is certainly so for first-generation immigrants, but for the third generation and beyond, it warrants a re-consideration. In a sense PAP has been successful in making us "Singaporean" through our "race". Maybe, underlying my arguments in the paper, I have already begun to acknowledge this shift subtly when I realized that the key context of "cultural identity" today is to foster a reconciliation between "basic Chinese norms" (tradition, historical formation etc) and "modern cultural norms" (individualisation, Western ideals etc) in ourselves. The national identity has been left unquestioned in my essay, not because I don't want to but because there is no simple answer to it and no consensus academically. One key point to note as a future projection is whether the sense of national identity will be strengthened in light of China's growth and increasing foreign immigrants, or whether that Chinese perspective will come forth more. And in order not to confuse ourselves, we also have to place this in the light of Chinese EDUCATION: How are we going to balance the dynamics between these two? I have no answer too, but thanks for raising the point because it should inspire further thinking.

Education, like all power-driven discourses, shapes and is shaped by social trends and what members of society think. But so long as it is kept within a limit, most often the "shaping" has more dominace over how systems are shaped by social forces. That is where it can get a bit scary, because policy makers and researchers then believe what they do and try to make everyone believe them. And somehow while young educated Singaporeans have more and more doubts we seldom find a way to consolidate and crystalize these issues for rational debates. Perhaps sub-consciously we never felt the need for this because PAP dominates everything. But this will, and should change in the next one or two decades.

Response to SoE essay: Letter (1)

A close buddy of 11 years sent me a thought-provoking mail, to which I have replied and would like to post here just in case I lose the mail in future. Good ideas should be shared with the world:

Hello,

You know, as I was reading your mail, I was smiling - a large grin. Why? Cos our understanding of the current problems are almost 99.9% - the last 0.1% as a SOP to hedge our stands and "not be too affirmative". To see that you coming from your own experiences have some much similarity to my views show that perhaps with more case studies my understanding of our generation - at least ppl from similar dominantly-Chinese families - is worthy of further pursue, perhaps even becoming "grounded theory", as they call it in social science.

I will reply you one paragraph by one paragraph. See the blue words below.

Cheers,
Bear

hi,

i will just like to start by saying that it is definitely an interesting read, but definitely not an easy one. perhaps i have lost connections to the outside world, so pardon me for replying to such an elegantly structured article with simplified sentences in point form. i am sorry but recently i have not been in the best of moods, or the hopeful of a purposeful and just world. perhaps i shall focus more on the content in this mail, not that i have anything against your style of writing..

i would not call this feedback, to your writing, but rather i think i just want to put this across as a response.

u mentioned we, as chinese, keeps our sense of chinese identity be descent. meaning we are born chinese, and that makes us chinese. i kinda do not agree to that. perhaps i misunderstood you. but i was thinking if put a non chinese in a chinese family before 1 year old to be brought up as a chinese, and if u put a chinese in another non-chinese environment and brought up as some other culture. i am not too sure what will happen. i kinda think that family upbringing is important too in?recognizing who you are. perhaps the language is not as important, but the way you are brought up, the mindset is important.

The point about being Chinese by descent and appearance is a point that has been made by prominent sociologists like John Clammer and Wang Gungwu in the 1980s. To a large extent I still think it very much holds true. In mainland China, to enter the Chinese circle you need to know how to write Chinese, at least - what researchers call "Han culturalism". Even then, be it in China or in overseas societies, "blood" is a very important concept, coupled with paternal lineage. Speaking of just the Chinese alone, in Singapore (and probably most South-east Asian countries), ”blood" forms the baseline of who we are racially and ethnically. Because it comes so naturally, we sometimes don't even question that aspect of our own identity. Now for the cases you mentioned, of course family upbringing is important. But the question boils down to how you see yourself, how others see you, and how society "categorizes" you (more on this later). Put an Indian in a Chinese family in Singapore, he is Chinese in language, habits and thought. Maybe if his father is Chinese they may classify him as Chinese race, but still if he doesn't talk or speaks English, people see him as Indian in our society. It's that simple. It's our epistemological lens of seeing people by their appearance, and then descent.

which brings me to the pitiful point of living in sg. i use to think that the way we grow up, when we are toddlers, looking and making sense of the world, that is when we first start identifying ourselves. the old stuff, the environment we grow up, how i remember my grandma use to wake in the middle of the night to drink milo. but that is the stuff that is wiped out so quickly in sg now. i dont see the things i grow up with, in, around. the ppl move on. the environment change. too fast. if u ask me now what i feel about being a singaporean, i dont know. what that is holding me back to staying here, just the ppl. no much feelings for local culture. no much feelings for local place. it seems to me that it is not about making another place a home, it seems to me the reason why we are still holding on to our lives. recently i have been thinking, look at me.. am i still alive? so what is there worth celebrating about. which is why ppl say to celebrate, exactly as you are living. but in this sense if i am right, we lose our sense of presence, of country, what more a race?

I agree. People do hold us back the most, otherwise I think I would prefer living in HK because it is really more liberal here. But still, after being overseas for so long, I sometimes miss the air in Singapore so much. I miss my neighbourhood, I miss the food market, I don't miss local food, but I miss the plants back home. This issue branches into "national identity", and seriously it isn't that easy to define this aspect because it involves theoretical divisions of ideological, judgmental, emotional aspects etc. For me, the way I have handled it in my essay is to downplay the issue and see it from a perspective of increasing national identity from the first generation to our generation - We may be critical of our own identities, but it does boil down to the fact that you are bothered enough to think about it. If you don't regard yourself Singaporean, you probably wouldn't care less thinking why and what makes you so.

but if i were to look at it as a person, not a singaporean. not a chinese. look at USA. it is like the other country in recent year that is formed from a mix of influx ppl. not totally indians, like India, not totally chinese like China. ?not much like france or britain. its like a mix. mess u can say. still messy now. still incoherent. but they develop their own culture. something the world sees and say, that is just so american. but i see that that helps then to stand out and say they are american. y should we be so concerned we lost out china connections? we itself is too a state and community of producing our own culture? true. we have the benefits of possessing old chinese plus qualities. but we need not stop from finding our own. and not totally worried about losing part of the old ones.?

I have always been interested in comparing North America's development path with our nation's own development, esp in this day and age when immigration begins to affect us drastically. I have yet to do so, but from the professor teaching this module - an amazing guy who's American with Italian blood, came over to HK in his late 20s and been here for over 30 yrs, and is an expert on minorities in mainland China specializing in Tibet and Mongolia, I do see many similarities. But for our nation to develop something like theirs is going to be difficult, not least because of the historical road we have taken - or at least what the PAP has wanted us to take. I wouldn't be too sure to say that we have produced our own culture, this point is controversial among researchers. I do agree, however, that we need to find our own - which includes losing old stuff, acquiring new elements, and balancing the two. That has been taken into account in my paper, by the inclusion of "basic Chinese cultural norms" and "modern cultural norms" in the cultural identity, and if you see my suggestions towards the end of the paper, this point about storming, norming and forming our own unique identity as "Singaporean Chinese", if this term isn't too offensive, is what I advocate in our education, and also what "bicultural elites" take the initiative to do. (End of this month or early next month, I am preparing to write an article for my column on Zaobao Sunday, called 《人文性的“双文化”》, which will focus on this issue.

just a random quote i saw today, "I can?foresee?a country without wars. no one is fighting. no one is hungry. everyone works and is well fed. everyone is happy and content. and i can foresee us attacking that country, coz they are least expecting it." it is sometimes not enough for ourself to be happy and built a sustainable country coz we will be attacked. but can we built one that is peaceful and fully capable of defending ourself? can a trained but inexperienced soldier ever fight a war?

Pray, no wars. *Fingers crossed* Amitabha, Amen, Allah...

sometimes i also think that religion may play a small or larger role. look at the older folks, their religion, their beliefs. and look at the newer generation. sometimes u cannot blame a shift in belief. if the belief shifts, it may have an impact on the culture, the festives, the purpose. like tomb sweeping. like mid autumn. like cny. many of these we are no longer feeling for it. many of these, sadly, is more for a moral celebration than a physical one. like cny. we are not farmers. we do not feel the happiness in the spring. we are not a large country. we do not understnad the gathering of a large family to celebrate. so what then do we celebrate? if there ever is a need to celebrate.

I agree with your views on religion, because of my own personal experience. When ppl ask me about my religion nowadays, I say I am Taoist by birth but Buddhist by belief. Now why keep the Taoist part if I no longer believe in it? Cos I seriously think there's a big part in me that is shaped since young by this part of myself, and even till today I think the calming effect acquired from Taoism still works better than yoga for me. I have stopped short of mentioning it in my paper because it will be too much of an assertion that I won't be able to find much substantiation. But still I believe personally religion contributes a lot to who we are as Chinese. And festivals, you're right. Less "feel" than before. But still it's not going to die out, and even if it's just going to be ritual, I think it helps in sustaining an ethnic group identity.

if we look at a couple of centuries ago, we ask ourself what is a race? why are there races? why are the indians and the chinese not a race? why are the malays and indians not a race? why are the hokkiens and teochews not a race? there seems to be a max limit of the size of a race, the physical distance before they are no longer part of the race. so why is it that now, as we migrate, we bring our old race along. old race? new race? recently i was thinking about the reasons why humans need to live and organise. to create power. to create leaders. to create gangs. to create so many systems and structures.?

Ah ha! Good question. I mentioned this in my paper that we in Singapore have a CIMO (Chinese, Indian, Malay, Others) policy that I found out was staunchly put in place when we were in primary school. This has been critiqued since the 1980s till today. For the Chinese we don't feel it so much esp after we lose our dialects, but for the Indians it's still very much an identity issue because the languages they speak are different and that is linked to their or their forefathers' of origin. In due time we will need to reconsider this because the "others" population will begin to increase tremendously. The thing is, race is very much a colonial idea to segregate ppl so they don't create trouble, and has been thrown out by many countries after WWII. Only Singapore is still using it very much alive as a political form of segregation. It boils down to how we have been managing our racial diversity issue all these yrs. Like you pointed out in the later part of your letter, we speak English but we don't understand one another. Because all along we have been taught to be "harmonious" - which, the way I see it, it's just "tolerance", albeit without much offence. We never truly integrated as a people. That also in turn affects our national identity, and how our national education has been shaped to become so superficial. That's also why until today we are having IRCC - Inter-racial confidence circles. See, it's just "confidence", still no integration.

many of the stuff i understand today of chinese culture are told by my parents. grandparents. the younger seems to not talk too ?much to their older folks. somethign of the chinese and only seen in chinese. we do very little documentation. very few instruction manual. we pass a lot of skills, informations through words of mouth. through lifestyle. through living together. but sometimes i think, disagreeing with what u said, we are still unable to learn language as only a tool. u learn maths. u use maths. do u feel very mathematical? no. maths is a tool. no culture associated. anyone who is discussing about maths do not feel so far off from each other. u learn english. u learn english literature. can we understand literature without underatanding their culture, background, society? i think not. but we need to do exams. we study history, of singapore, of west. of china? not till recent years. y? like i said. i am an engineer. you learn maths as a tool. you cannot learn english as a tool. cannot? you can actually. but we are not. we are learning so much of english, or any language, that it is no longer just a tool.?

This is one point that you definitely have mis-read me. If I mentioned anything like "language as a tool", I must be raising it so I can shoot it down. This is an excerpt from my blog post today:

我们中文教育一向的逻辑是：流着华人的血脉—必须学华语—学习了华语，就懂得华人文化—也就能做更好的华人。然而，这个逻辑已经开始被颠覆，就在第一个环 节上：当孩子开始问，为什么华人就必须学华语时，他们在挑战的便是第一个环节。一旦这个环节过不去，整个“逻辑链”就不攻自破。而许多人常给的答案是：华 人“理所当然”必须学华语。但这个答案，还在不信服。为什么？因为，说到底，这“理所当然”就如同总理口中的“天经地义”般，建筑在政治话语所焕发的个人 信仰（belief）及对自我身份构成的理解之上。于是乎，连政客都不想再谈这“理所当然”（秉持这理由的，总是华社份子），转而诉诸中国崛起与中文经济 效益的理由。但这虽然能够让家长开始信服与华文华语的重要性，并且“逼”孩子去学好这个语言，对孩子而言，这种自身的“信仰”依旧不成立。于是怎么办？也 许，华文教育需要的，便是把上述的逻辑链倒过来，由"文化"做源头,带动语文学习的兴趣。这文化，不能再纯粹是依照正规“新加坡定义”式的儒家思想或华族 文化，而必须扎根于中国的大传统与世界历史发展之中——但是，这也不意味你必须把一篇篇的原著让孩子去啃。需要的，是教师自身对“文化”的认识；而这“文 化”，我们必须切记，是那种能够让孩子反过来自豪于自身华人身份的因素。

It is precisely because 身教 no longer works that education has to take on a greater cultural responsibility, and the nation needs a better cultural policy. That's why in my paper I suggested adding "literacy" to the ethnic-language-culture equation of logic. But as you see, we never still quite have a good Chinese term to translate "literacy". That's why it doesn't figure in the minds of Chinese educator. Without suitable vocabulary there is no concept.

something i feel recently, a lot of kids do not understand the point of education while they are in the system. a lot of us still do not understand education. i still dont. i dont think i ever will. sometimes, i dont want to. the more u understand, the more u look back at what we are doing and ask what the hell are we still doing something like that? but we are sometimes reistant to the solution. we may see it. but we may not always do it. singapore does not allow someone who is 30 or older to go back to formal education. not like europe. y? because of that, we are only given one chance. those who screw it up halfway gives up and walk to the end. those that does not, runs all the way to the end. completes the race. and stand there at the end point. coz we dont know what we have done. we dont know what next to do. sometimes i feel that language is an application tool too, like maths. we teach language, using that, we communicate. and through communicating, we teach common sense. we teach right and wrong. we teach thinking skills. and we use language. but currently i like to think that we teach language by teaching language. literature kind of language.?

Ok, this point strays from the discussion. Still, it's very important because it's a bigger question - in fact an international one facing all developed countries shrouded by the globalization discourse. Basic state education is a very difficult issue to deal with, in fact more troublesome than tertiary education because the implications are far-reaching. I attended a lecture by a World Bank official some weeks back, and one point he mentioned was precisely the inclusion of continuing education for adults in tertiary institutions. In due time I believe this point will come through, depending on market conditions. As for the point about not daring to think, well at least for me it's a responsibility. It's ultimately what taxpayers paid my school fees for isn't it - to improve the education system? I do wonder sometimes how far I can "fight" state decisions and power, but at times if need be, I think I will still "speak Truth to the state" in my personal capacity. At least the current Director-General of Education is very receptive to new ideas, very humanist as well, so I see hope.

like u said, a lot of our education is actually economically driven. we started off as a fishing village. we move off, as a trading village. we end of as a traders village. if u think about it, most of our economy is still business based. we are only starting to do services, which is still a kind of business. we do not have much native technology. we do not have much native skills. switzerland ppl makes good watches. germans make good cars. what we do best? trading. traders learn what they need to make the money. we teach chinese for china, english for US and the world. sometimes i really wonder how sustainable is this? last sat's straits time. the best paying job is still econs in nus and smu. ntu is bio engineering. it says, i am not quoting, that if u can, the best choice now is still to go to business. econs. but y is the current ecomonic situation like that? but i suppose the money will still stay in that sector for a while more. perhaps a long while. if education is economically driven, then y are we thinking so hard about it? if we do not understand the fundamental of having education, how can we make a good system?

The aim-of-education debate needs to be sparked off again, but I think researchers and philosophers are trying to find a way how. Cos the moment you do this, you not only have to counter state power, you have to deal with the whole globalization discourse and it's just going to be either non-effective or you come up with a theory that ultimately becomes an ivory tower. As of now, I think at the tertiary level we can borrow some ideas from other universities how to be less market-driven in our "products" - read, graduates, but still the proportion is gg to be controlled by the State. No choice, we need money before talking abt anything else. But from primary to pre-tertiary, I am determined to prevent any over-inflitration of money talk seeping in too early. In recent months some friends have asked me what I think of including "financial management" as secondary modules, and I replied perhaps JC or poly. I really don't wish to see kids becoming corrupt in the mind when they're too young to even differentiate right from wrong - or maybe left? I see it in some Band 3 schools in HK. Kids talk of jobs jobs jobs at 13 yrs old, 'cos that's what their parents teach them at home knowing they won't make it to university. The way I see it, basic education has a "shield" to maintain. If there is indeed a logic as study hard --> score good grades --> get good degree --> find good job, I don't wish for students to jump from one end to the other straightaway when they shld be exploring a lot even in their teenagehood. At times you do question why learn all the "wrong" stuff that's over-simplified, and I think once you had the answer by saying that it's because by having the basic stuff that's incomplete, we learn to unlearn and relearn, so we learn better than if we had nothing. I think that's going to be eternal. It's just a process of knowledge growth. It's just like the religion we mentioned earlier too: when young you learn rules without questioning, or getting answers like "you'll know when you grow up" if you did question. When you grow older, you will seek your own answers - but only if you remembered you had a question. So the aim of basic education should not be to provide answers. Rather it should be to learn some facts, then do 2 things: 1) stimulate questions that need not be answered right away; 2) helping students maintain the curiosity to find out the answer(s) as they grow older. At least, that will be my philosophy of teaching.

you also mentioned using language, like english, that is common to bridge distances between different communities. but sometiems i think it is not useful. u can make then talk, but that does not mean they understand one another. that does not mean they dont fight. i rather think that the policy they are using is not allowing u to talk about it. abstinence. like sex and aids. dont touch it. u dont get it. the virus, and the sex. oh ya. and the communities arguing. cant we use religion, the chinese harmony values and morals to promote peace? cant we identify with the fact that we are stuck here on this island and we need to stick together? i dont see too much use to a common language honestly. it is a tool. but it does not solve the problem on its own. sometimes i feel like our society is binded together by post it notes. it holds together. but it also peels away without any stain. we cannot change a society ?overnight. so education is like the only bet. but we dont see the real aims of education, other than ecomonically.

I wouldn't agree with the point that society cannot change overnight. It can, and that's why we are all so concerned. I think one key question that has popped up and stayed there in my mind these days is: how is society possible? Some ppl like Margaret Thatcher may say there are only individuals and families, no society, and relegate society as a construct that is in the mind. Still, for various reasons humans have bonded in groups and a society. Try reading Rousseau‘s "On the origin of inequality". It's got some nice theories though probably not sufficient to answer this anthropological question.

Perhaps sometimes we are overstating the economic issue sometimes. At least, in basic education I do see that at times we do try to do more than just the economic - though that is the ultimate goal. That said, my take is that our form of "political correctness" in education is becoming overboard in light of changing limits in thought. I mentioned this in my paper as well.

its not very coherent this email. but i try to put it some post it notes at the end. hopefully it holds. chinese identity. pardon me for asking y we need it? pardon me for asking how u define it. to me i grow up like that. handed down mouth to ?mouth, hands to hands. i did not learn it in school, during my time, school promoted speaking english. speak english at home. honestly. so i never really appreciate the purpose of education. because of that, i dont see a link education and chinese identity. the language can help, by teaching the language, u teach the chinese moral, history, way of life. the westerners spent a lot of their history invading, colonising. we spent a great deal, after qin emperor, thinking. philosphers. medicine. certain science. like chiinese medicine, we learn from pratical, trial an error. observations. in many ways we are different from the west. and we are not necessarily worse off. if u look at leading science, medicine approach, it is actually quite close to the chinese. but we dont teach that in school anymore. the chinese righteousness. the morals and values. the contradiction. we can find all sorts of contradiction in chinese teachings, and we can see a convergence in all that. i dont yet. some ppl do. but we dont teach these anymore. we stick to passages, we stick to learning more words. there was an argurment put forward in book outliers, asians are always better in maths. y? maybe its the language. we only have one syllable for each number. one to ten. seven. that is long. we go shi san. two syllable. two number. thirteen. that is odd. and twenty three does not follow the thirteen system. twenty onwards follow a different naming system than from eleven to nineteen. compare one, eleven, twenty one, thirty one. eleven is odd. different system. look at yi. shi yi. er shi yi. san shi yi. that is coherent system. so it facilitates us counting in the mind. its more efficient. coherent. more fun, easier, we do better in maths. but its his book, his theory. he is an ang moh. look at abacus. nothing close to its efficiency, non-eletronic, in the western side. but we dont tthink like that anymore. we do zen meditation yoga. but chinese has its form of meditation too.

I think this is one point I am more bothered with than most ppl because of my own experiences in China. Makes me wonder sometimes if I am more West than East. Here, a few paragraphs from my blog post today:

1) 在我们的语文课程内，特别是中学课程，虽然目前已转向阅读与写作技能，但这终究只是一种“形”（form）。中文教学还是要有“质”（content） 的，并通过“质”带动“形”的学习——换句话说，你必须是在引导孩子理解文章的基础上，带入阅读技能教学的策略，而不是将后者孤立出来教，否则就必将成为 硬生生的“答题技巧”的训练。而这content，我们上面已谈到，必须是以能够feedback到学生华人身份的中华文化，但与此同时——而这才是关键 ——这华人身份中的文化成分，在双语的教育与社会环境之下，不能够是单一的、与通过英语学习和使用中接触到的“文化”割裂的。当代的新加坡青年们需要的， 恰恰的是将他们内在、经由不同语言而获得的个人信念与文化熏陶进行统一的教育。华文课上教导的，以及还在从英文课与网络上获得的知识，也许是矛盾、冲突 的。或者，举个例子，在华族文化中，我们重视群体，而当下因市场化影响而处处弥漫着的个体化倾向（individualization），是容易在理性上 与前者冲突的——尤其当这种理想还未能够进行辩证的时候。华文教学之所以显得“古板”、“老套”、“过时”，有一定程度上便是因为其背后“灌输”的文化价 值观，难以与孩子们接触的现代文化相配合，或是调和。几十年前那种“中学（文）为体，西学（文）为用”的分道扬镳式哲学，是越来越没有吸引力了，不论在中 国，或是在新加坡。

而当下，政府似乎在将所有人拉向语言的学习，把文化留给精英们（所谓的“双文化精英”）。从政治管理上，这有其合理的 逻辑；但从语文教学上，这种割裂是不恰当的。甚至，它将让孩子愈加觉得华文学习的单薄。“文以载道”，古来便是中国知识分子的口头禅。如今，文（语言）与 道（文化）是必须相互配合进行的——此所谓“道沿圣以垂文，圣因文而明道”也。而英文有其“英道”，中文亦有其自身之“道”，于是，若不引导孩子去辨识其 中异同，基于各种历史与社会原因而觉得更加hip and happening的英文及其文化与信念，便容易成为孩子倾向的那一端。于是，他们离华族之“道”亦远，学华文华语的内在动力就越低，而整个华文华语的发 展，按当今世界局势与政治话语的走向，只能是越来越逼近韦伯所谓的“工具理性”（rational instrumentality），而这种功利化倾向，将根本性地改变华社在新加坡的作用与地位。

2) 之前不断被“权利”与“义务”、“付出”与“获得”之间的矛盾纠缠，但目前也就逐渐在辩证中，拨开云雾见月明。东方社会，最关键的不是“群体”， 而是其之下的“义务”。中国古代并非没有“个人”，只是没有时时刻刻把“权利”（rights）挂在嘴边的个人。东方社会的每个人——或者应该说，资本主 义社会之前的人——都是在向集体履行“义务”的过程中实现个体性的。也许，久而久之，随着皇权太强大，就成为了变相的压制。而因为没有“权利”，因此要找 到理由推翻腐败政权就很难。董仲舒《天人三策》要以天相来作为皇权的评判（即后来的“天人合一”），便是想制衡汉武帝的势力。或许也是这样，他从未成功地 得到武帝的宠信。当今我们处处谈“人权”，也是因为纳粹审判时，出现一个大问题：根据纳粹时代的德国法律，德国将领的行为都属于合法，因此并不构成“犯罪 ”，于是必须生发出一个普世的“人权法”，来定那些屠夫的罪。

而到了今天，我们却把这些背景全抛开，一想到“义务”就与“束缚”划上等 号，并认为那必将转化为为某种势力服务并受压抑的力量；而一想到“权利”，就汲汲然一窝蜂冲上去，认为那就是“自我保护”，加上资本主义社会的变相影响， 更强化了“个人化”的倾向。殊不知从人类学的角度看，“钱”的原始形式，叫做“礼物”；而“礼物”的作用，是为了避免部落之间的战争。到了17、18世 纪，“赚钱”在西方也是为了要弘扬基督神的伟大，是间接与“奉献”对等的。只是到了近两百年，我们才“误入歧途”。

而当下，中国逐渐出现 的矛盾之一，便是在“权利”与“义务”这个点上。被压抑的要“维权”，有钱的不要“义务”，社会走上的就是自我中心的不归路。就连在相对保守的新加坡，我 们的孩子在言论方面，也开始出现相似的论调，要my own voice，而不在乎更大的目标或是meta-narrative。Creative thinking和critical thinking之所以在西方被成为neo-liberalism，并且被批评为社会弊端的源头，成为New rightist movement的攻击对象，也是基于相似的理由。只不过，大家总习惯停留在现象的表层，而不去追述其背后的历史发展与当前问题的形成原因。对于华文教育 的衰落，大家也似乎在犯同样的毛病。也正是这样，《联合早报》只见赞扬、担忧，而不见批判。

its sometimes the things we teach that makes us identify ourself. its the things we understand that we call our own. as child psychologist believe, children need to identify themself. so they mimick their adults. the first thigns they see. their parents. so its from there on that they learn. and it always continues learning. but we live in the new age, the age that asks y. how efficient. y a chinese identity? what can it do for me? other than riding the china wave. y education.? y i am borned a chinese makes me a chinese? i see that we now think of ourselves as stuck nowhere. not fully chinese, not western. and under siege of a hell lot of immigrants with more culture to mix in. sometimes we dont identify ourself with the new chinese immigrants. they call themselves chinese. i am supposed to do the same. but i dont identify, but definitely they are chinese. so probably im not. what i think? we need to create a singapore chinese, not too unlike the chinese chinese. but somethign distinct we still call our own. wats wrong with a different type of chinese? american english, british english, australian english, y cant we have a singapore version of chinese, or singlish?

On the point about Singapore Chinese, another blog quote:

就像英语在新加坡有能”登雅堂”的正规英语和“窜民间”的通俗英语（后者亦称“Singlish”），中文也可能需要有这样一个发展的空间。并不是说，我 们在教育中必须刻意去鼓吹这样的语言，但无法否认的是，英语在新加坡社会的普及，很大程度上是因为Singlish的诞生与长期存在。华文华语最特别的 是，一旦掌握了基础的语法之后，即使掺杂英文单词的华语句子，基本上依循中文语法的。于是，我们其实不该去遏制“新加坡式华语”的民间诞生；与此同时，我 们也该去思考一下，为何孩子一旦要用“正规华语”时，表述上就总是“一榻一榻”，难以有行云流水般的顺畅感。若要我凭空猜测，我会说，关键的在“自信”二 字，而这也是我以上建议底根基所在。

Stuck between East and West - that is the fundamental question in my mind as I ponder on Chinese education in Singapore, and on a greater scale, the whole society's development. China is facing the same problem, but they are burdened with a LARGE historical baggage. So I think for Singaporeans, we can lead the Eastern world by becoming the ones to be "bi-cultural" (ok I hate this word but it's probably apt for now). We need to move from the way we have amessed East-West culture into our political system, to focusing on each individual's own world. If you ask me, that is the way education has to go, and is one of the main aims of education. Because, simply put, without this, most ppl will be lured by Western ideals in no time because it has a Satan-ian appeal like the snake to Eve: "bite the apple bite the apple!!" While for those of us who still have a staunch affliation for Chinese habits and culture, and who don't see everything as "outdated", we need to find that middle ground that is not too English, not too China-Chinese. If you ask me, that has to involve all disciplines of the humanities. On my part, I am trying in the arena of arts, thought and education. But whether there can be success, I don't know. I'm not too worried, since after all society evolves as a whole. I just wish we have more "thought leaders" in Singapore, and hopefully a few make it into Cabinet.

答小学妹

哈，估计是吧，心态比什么都重要。如同“赤子之心”，重要的不是自己是否在学府里，而是如何看待自己。

来港大读研究生后，我立志以后开始教书后，要有意识地收集自己的一切教学材料和记录教学经验反思，成为autobiographical researcher。我想，如果能够鼓励多一些老师们进行这个，结合同事之间的合作学习和lesson study，不但教师自身能够成长得更快，而且，教育经验也能成为研究成果。这也是推进东南亚华文教育的一个重要出路。也许，这也将是我“一辈子做学生”的方式吧。

《论语》翻是翻过，但没有像读《道德经》那样深。况且，这些经典如同诗歌一样，是随着人生历练越嚼越香的。加上人老了之后，记忆力衰退，所以总得不断重新再读。

之前不断被“权利”与“义务”、“付出”与“获得”之间的矛盾纠缠，但目前也就逐渐在辩证中，拨开云雾见月明。东方社会，最关键的不是“群体”，而是其之下的“义务”。中国古代并非没有“个人”，只是没有时时刻刻把“权利”（rights）挂在嘴边的个人。东方社会的每个人——或者应该说，资本主义社会之前的人——都是在向集体履行“义务”的过程中实现个体性的。也许，久而久之，随着皇权太强大，就成为了变相的压制。而因为没有“权利”，因此要找到理由推翻腐败政权就很难。董仲舒《天人三策》要以天相来作为皇权的评判（即后来的“天人合一”），便是想制衡汉武帝的势力。或许也是这样，他从未成功地得到武帝的宠信。当今我们处处谈“人权”，也是因为纳粹审判时，出现一个大问题：根据纳粹时代的德国法律，德国将领的行为都属于合法，因此并不构成“犯罪”，于是必须生发出一个普世的“人权法”，来定那些屠夫的罪。

而到了今天，我们却把这些背景全抛开，一想到“义务”就与“束缚”划上等号，并认为那必将转化为为某种势力服务并受压抑的力量；而一想到“权利”，就汲汲然一窝蜂冲上去，认为那就是“自我保护”，加上资本主义社会的变相影响，更强化了“个人化”的倾向。殊不知从人类学的角度看，“钱”的原始形式，叫做“礼物”；而“礼物”的作用，是为了避免部落之间的战争。到了17、18世纪，“赚钱”在西方也是为了要弘扬基督神的伟大，是间接与“奉献”对等的。只是到了近两百年，我们才“误入歧途”。

而当下，中国逐渐出现的矛盾之一，便是在“权利”与“义务”这个点上。被压抑的要“维权”，有钱的不要“义务”，社会走上的就是自我中心的不归路。就连在相对保守的新加坡，我们的孩子在言论方面，也开始出现相似的论调，要my own voice，而不在乎更大的目标或是meta-narrative。Creative thinking和critical thinking之所以在西方被成为neo-liberalism，并且被批评为社会弊端的源头，成为New rightist movement的攻击对象，也是基于相似的理由。只不过，大家总习惯停留在现象的表层，而不去追述其背后的历史发展与当前问题的形成原因。对于华文教育的衰落，大家也似乎在犯同样的毛病。也正是这样，《联合早报》只见赞扬、担忧，而不见批判。

问我，为何只说而不身体力行地去写文章进行根本性的反思？不是不报，只是时机未到。不想自己的观点，被现在的讲华语运动掩盖。所以，等运动接近尾声时，再来棒头一击，希望能在5月份掀起一场关于华文教育的辩论。

华文教育的出路

人总是要为自己找出路。“社会”，哪怕有些人认为只是一种由语言构成的“虚假存在”，也总是必须为问题找出路。

华文教育走到今天这步田地，说实在的已经是逼近悬崖。而我们这些人在做的，便是拉住马缰，不让自己与之同归于尽。

近来写了篇近一万字的英文文章，剖析华文教育与新加坡华人身份之间的问题。前提是，语文必须与身份有关。如果说，要从中提炼出三点最关键的建议，应该是：

1）就像英语在新加坡有能”登雅堂”的正规英语和“窜民间”的通俗英语（后者亦称“Singlish”），中文也可能需要有这样一个发展的空间。并不是说，我们在教育中必须刻意去鼓吹这样的语言，但无法否认的是，英语在新加坡社会的普及，很大程度上是因为Singlish的诞生与长期存在。华文华语最特别的是，一旦掌握了基础的语法之后，即使掺杂英文单词的华语句子，基本上依循中文语法的。于是，我们其实不该去遏制“新加坡式华语”的民间诞生；与此同时，我们也该去思考一下，为何孩子一旦要用“正规华语”时，表述上就总是“一榻一榻”，难以有行云流水般的顺畅感。若要我凭空猜测，我会说，关键的在“自信”二字，而这也是我以上建议底根基所在。

2）我们中文教育一向的逻辑是：流着华人的血脉—必须学华语—学习了华语，就懂得华人文化—也就能做更好的华人。然而，这个逻辑已经开始被颠覆，就在第一个环节上：当孩子开始问，为什么华人就必须学华语时，他们在挑战的便是第一个环节。一旦这个环节过不去，整个“逻辑链”就不攻自破。而许多人常给的答案是：华人“理所当然”必须学华语。但这个答案，还在不信服。为什么？因为，说到底，这“理所当然”就如同总理口中的“天经地义”般，建筑在政治话语所焕发的个人信仰（belief）及对自我身份构成的理解之上。于是乎，连政客都不想再谈这“理所当然”（秉持这理由的，总是华社份子），转而诉诸中国崛起与中文经济效益的理由。但这虽然能够让家长开始信服与华文华语的重要性，并且“逼”孩子去学好这个语言，对孩子而言，这种自身的“信仰”依旧不成立。于是怎么办？也许，华文教育需要的，便是把上述的逻辑链倒过来，由"文化"做源头,带动语文学习的兴趣。这文化，不能再纯粹是依照正规“新加坡定义”式的儒家思想或华族文化，而必须扎根于中国的大传统与世界历史发展之中——但是，这也不意味你必须把一篇篇的原著让孩子去啃。需要的，是教师自身对“文化”的认识；而这“文化”，我们必须切记，是那种能够让孩子反过来自豪于自身华人身份的因素。

3）与第二点相关的是，在我们的语文课程内，特别是中学课程，虽然目前已转向阅读与写作技能，但这终究只是一种“形”（form）。中文教学还是要有“质”（content）的，并通过“质”带动“形”的学习——换句话说，你必须是在引导孩子理解文章的基础上，带入阅读技能教学的策略，而不是将后者孤立出来教，否则就必将成为硬生生的“答题技巧”的训练。而这content，我们上面已谈到，必须是以能够feedback到学生华人身份的中华文化，但与此同时——而这才是关键——这华人身份中的文化成分，在双语的教育与社会环境之下，不能够是单一的、与通过英语学习和使用中接触到的“文化”割裂的。当代的新加坡青年们需要的，恰恰的是将他们内在、经由不同语言而获得的个人信念与文化熏陶进行统一的教育。华文课上教导的，以及还在从英文课与网络上获得的知识，也许是矛盾、冲突的。或者，举个例子，在华族文化中，我们重视群体，而当下因市场化影响而处处弥漫着的个体化倾向（individualization），是容易在理性上与前者冲突的——尤其当这种理想还未能够进行辩证的时候。华文教学之所以显得“古板”、“老套”、“过时”，有一定程度上便是因为其背后“灌输”的文化价值观，难以与孩子们接触的现代文化相配合，或是调和。几十年前那种“中学（文）为体，西学（文）为用”的分道扬镳式哲学，是越来越没有吸引力了，不论在中国，或是在新加坡。

而当下，政府似乎在将所有人拉向语言的学习，把文化留给精英们（所谓的“双文化精英”）。从政治管理上，这有其合理的逻辑；但从语文教学上，这种割裂是不恰当的。甚至，它将让孩子愈加觉得华文学习的单薄。“文以载道”，古来便是中国知识分子的口头禅。如今，文（语言）与道（文化）是必须相互配合进行的——此所谓“道沿圣以垂文，圣因文而明道”也。而英文有其“英道”，中文亦有其自身之“道”，于是，若不引导孩子去辨识其中异同，基于各种历史与社会原因而觉得更加hip and happening的英文及其文化与信念，便容易成为孩子倾向的那一端。于是，他们离华族之“道”亦远，学华文华语的内在动力就越低，而整个华文华语的发展，按当今世界局势与政治话语的走向，只能是越来越逼近韦伯所谓的“工具理性”（rational instrumentality），而这种功利化倾向，将根本性地改变华社在新加坡的作用与地位。

令人动容的读者来信（3）

陈先生：
您好！
您对农村教育很感兴趣吗？这篇文章是我写的，很真实。

如您需要农村教育方面的素材，我可以发给您。

我也是代课老师，现在已是四月份了，可我们代课老师连一月份的工资都还没发。

漆黑的夜晚，山村显得异常寂静，代课教师安子躺在床上似乎能听到自己的心跳声，妻子和女儿睡得很安稳，但他却毫无睡意，因为他很烦，不，准确地说是悲愤。

从事教学工作10多年，因为贫穷，安子尝够了别人的鄙视和冷嘲热讽。那少得可怜的工资，能解决什么？只能勉强解决自己的温饱问题，可他是一家之主，还要养家糊口啊！所以安子一家三口常常是半月不闻肉味。

在教室上课，安子曾这样对学生阐释一篇课文的深层意思：旧社会是万恶的、人吃人的社会。安子当时就觉得很滑稽：改革后的新中国又给了他们代课教师什么呢？代课教师只不过是政府眼里的一种价廉物美的用具罢了！因而代课教师也是属于被人吃的一类人。

是的，确实是这样，安子心里叨念着：政府或学校以较少的资金支出来换取大量的人力(代课教师），然后又在报刊上声称政府在教育事业上的领导成就如何如何！

莫非，代课教师的另一种称号是奴隶？

隔壁的阿三在台资企业打工，员工之间月收入差距不大。可安子的月收入跟公办教师相比，那真是比得心如刀绞啊！这样说吧！一名公办教师和一名代课教师的年收入相差近两万元。

国民党统治下的台湾，他们的企业到大陆投资办厂，为什么他们的员工之间收入差距不大，而偏偏在共产党政府事业单位默默奉献的代课教师，反倒可以被视为牛马呢？

安子辗转反侧，想起床看电视，可闭路线被有线电视管理人员拆了，因为他交不起一年70元的使用费。那天放学回家，妻子说电视线被拆时，他真想扇自己两记耳 光。一个大男人养不好一个家，连看电视也没有选择的余地。虽然安子后来自装了一个简易的天线架，但“雪花漫天飞”的屏幕却是叫人宁愿早点睡觉也不想看电视 了。为这事，妻子都觉得丢脸。

“两会”召开期间，同事说深圳卫视叫观众发短信谈感想，安子就说，那借你的手机给我用一下，安子马上发了条短信到深圳卫视的互动平台：“我们对两会的召开丝毫不感兴趣，拒绝收看，因为我们代课教师受尽歧视与剥削，我们没有做人的尊严和地位。”

安子曾经认为李鹏是一位无能的总理，那时的官场相对腐败，国力不强，并引发1989年的北京动乱。不过，如今安子的看法却发生了180度的转变，因为那时 公办教师和代课教师的的年收入相差无几，这种收入直到朱镕基上台后才被打破。胡锦涛、温家宝主政的今天，教育系统内的贫富悬殊达到令人瞠目结舌的程度。所 以，安子很怀念李鹏主政的岁月。

近一两年来，安子常产生这样的心态：希望社会动荡，一切重新洗牌。可现实却是政局和社会都很稳定。

不知什么时候，安子睡着了。梦中，安子带领一队人员将县城搞得天翻地覆：县政府的大门倒塌了，教育局和人事局的大楼被同时炸毁了······

接着，安子也被对方俘虏了，两名共产党的武装警察毫不手软地开枪将他杀害了，枪声中，安子醒了，但他丝毫不惧怕，反而从心里升起一丝笑意---是因为稳定的社会不向他提供反共反政府的实践机会，还是梦中他的英雄行为？或许兼而有之吧！安子想。

注：安子是广西代课老师

令人动容的读者来信（2）

《早报》编辑周三发来邮件，说她们老总希望我把读者的来信汇集写出来，于是连夜就“赶”出了这篇文章。说实在的，专栏写了快三年，我总希望能和读者建立一种互信关系，也盼望有一天能够在公开场合对读者们表示感激。也许，世界总是“无心插柳柳成荫”，最意向不到的时候，就已做了这事，而自己都还未清醒地意识到自己做了什么……

【联合早报】读者的来信

（2009-04-05）

● 陈炜雄

　　上星期天（3月29日）刊登拙文《中国农村的孩子们》后，当天便收到二十几位读者的来信，其中有许多是大陆的读者。自己的文章能引起注意，并成为一座接触各阶层读者的桥梁，是我始料未及的，也使我倍加感动与感激。

　　友人说：没有回声的哭啼是最悲哀的，有人回应就代表希望还在。确实是。

　　步入21世纪，我总认为，中国经济迅速发展过程中的农村情况，特别是孩子与年轻人的心灵成长，是不容回避的时代课题。而在当下，每一封读者来信都隐约地告诉着我，在广阔的中国土地上，有那么一些人与自己一样，关注着农村、特别是农村孩子们的境遇。

　 　如一位读者写道：“很多留守儿童从小与爷爷奶奶辈老人在一起，他们普遍的性格就是孤僻，偏激，内向，不懂尊重他人。我想孩子是没有错的——他们从小长期 与父母分离，在校一些来自城市的同学又瞧不起他们，爷爷奶奶不懂得如何教育他们，一味溺爱。我经常听说他们之间发生一些伤人案件，近些年来越来越多，现在 还出现了新问题：地方上把高中卖给企业经营，导致大量师资流失，大量学生因为高额学费失学，高中未读，农村孩子没上完高中就出去打工，城市孩子不愿去打 工，沦落为混混流氓的后备军……每当看到农村同学在外打工稚嫩的背影，看到穿梭街头巷尾、闹市网吧的混混和耳边时常听说的血案，失望，伤心，失落，这就是 我们这么多年来发展的结果？”

　　能够正视问题，正是迈向进步的开始。来信者虽然来自中国不同省市，身份与经历也各异，但将我这个新加坡人 与他们联系起来的，是在批判之余，对中国现状所秉持的正面态度，以及对问题必将能解决的信念。特别是一些出生在农村或小镇，成功地“走出去”的大学生与上 班族，更是不吝地向我这个素昧平生的陌生人，讲述自己的成长历程。他们尽管心酸，但结尾总是：自己的艰辛，不愿下一代人继承；他们对中国这几十年来的发展 心存感激，同时相信要努力，“让一切好起来”，并立志鼓励孩子们“永远保持一颗赤子之心，在事业有成的一天，能以过来人的身份资助其他贫苦学生”。

　　无独有偶，这也是我最常与自己助养的孩子们说的话。

　 　来信者中，还有两位农村教师。其中一位，教了十几年书，“感觉自己在教学过程中扭曲了学生的灵魂，让他们来承担国家体制加在教师身上的压力”；另一位则细致地形容了农村孩子的生活：“其中一部分孩子要徒步20公里到学校，你想不到的是，有的孩子身上还要背着两样东西：一袋4公斤左右大米，还有两盆咸菜。 他们在学校一周的生活就靠这些东西维持。学校各有10间男女生宿舍，每间住着20多个同学，你猜不到的是每间宿舍的面积，一间房子长5.5米，宽3.2 米，每个同学摊不上一个平方。孩子们睡觉的地方是用横木搭建的‘通铺’，还分上下层。即使有木床，一张一米宽的木床也要睡下两个新生。尽管这样，孩子们没 怨过学校，没怨过老师，他们在学校起早贪黑的为着理想而努力。每到冬天，没有一个孩子的手皮是完整的，都生了冻疮。我上课最怕看到学生的双手，因为让我揪 心。”

　　老师们的文字里，夹杂的自我忏悔与对孩子们的愧疚，恰恰印证了我的一个信念：助读，从来都不只是钱的问题，如一名安徽的读者所言：“古人并不以贫穷而感到耻辱，而是以做人不高尚为耻。社会风尚如此，人心才会安定。我常想，抚贫是重要的，关键还在于扶心。”

　 　曾经有人对我说，如果没那么多钱，却要帮助农村建设，可以做两件事：一是买些树苗，为农村多种几棵树；二则是买些纸和笔，以及花点邮票钱，给个孩子写封 信，给予他或她心灵与精神的鼓励。我想，在中国经济与教育体制得到妥善改革，或是大陆的社会服务与公民社会尚未成熟之际，这是每个有点能力的人都能够做到 的。

（作者是香港大学硕士研究生）

电邮：vocalxiong@gmail.com

丑角

熊曰：生命即艺术的进行式，而我希望最终成为丑角。

安得广厦千万间

杜甫的诗，最难以忘怀的，要属《茅屋为秋风所破歌》。

一个人的力量有限，于是总是做着自己能力所及的事。但同时，心中却始终在找寻某个寄托，把不得变成千手千眼观世音。虽然像个畸形儿，却能普度众生。

想着想着，开始发觉，信仰其实根植于每个人的心中，包括孩子。而观音，说到底也只有一个。

那么，有什么办法，可以凭着一个人的力量，化解千万孩子心中的失落、空虚、惆怅、乃至愤恨？

也许，与其注视一些除了经济体制改革之外无法彻底得到解决的问题，我们应该想办法把梦想和希望，传达给每个孩子，滋润他们的心灵。

这种时候，我们需要文字。还有两种人——一种是儿童与青少年文学家，另一种是能抽空长期与一两个农村孩子进行信件来往的哥哥姐姐叔叔阿姨们。

在故事的过度里，在充满关怀的信纸世界中，也许，不论是留守儿童，或是农民工子女，都能发觉一个为他们挡（市场化之）风遮（庸俗化之）雨的天地——直到中国成就“和谐社会”。

安得书、信千万件，大庇天下孩童俱欢颜……

让我动容的读者来信（1）

在《联合早报》上发了《中国农村的孩子们》后，一天内收到十几位内地读者的来信，令我感动。如果说80年代的热点是潘晓来信时的“人生的路怎么越走越窄”，那么，估计21世纪的中国，经济发展中的农村情况，特别是孩子与年轻人的心灵成长，将是不容回避的时代课题。

这里转载部分读者来信，分享内地读者的心声：


在2009-03-29的联合早报网上读了你写的《中国农村的孩子们》，写得非常好，我也是一名“来自大陆乡下的孩子”，“放大到全中国的农村，有多少孩子是被逼着成长的，又有多少是心灵有裂痕乃至创伤的，难以估计”这句话真是让我感慨，我想这些你帮助过的孩子，也是幸运的，至少在这世界上，还有你这样知心的热心朋友。

炜雄先生：

您好！我是在联合早报看到的这个邮箱，给您写信不知您是否收到。读了您的文章，很为您悲天悯人的情怀所感动。我也是从农村奋斗到城市来的，深知农村的情况。我以为，目下的中国，贫穷到是在其次的，主要的问题是人心风俗需要重塑。改革开放以来，一切向钱看，不管白猫黑猫逮住老鼠就是好猫的功利思想，制造了一代人的浮燥。生活的目的和意义全部功利化了，衡量人的成功与否似乎只看他挣多少钱。而这一切才是造成一代痛苦的根源。于是有钱人苦恼，无钱人更苦恼。这是精神出了问题。据我看的古书，我们的祖先不是这样的。清朝康熙时有个李二曲，住在一地下挖的草棚子里，但他待人和善，孝敬父母，怡然自乐，著书立说，很得乡人的尊敬。陕西的巡抚很敬佩他的为人，甚至亲自登门访问他，与他交朋友。古人并不以贫穷而感到耻辱，而是以做人不高尚为耻。社会风尚如此，人心才会安定。我常想，抚贫是重要的，关键还在于扶心，心不安宁，痛苦一生。

不多写了，还不知你能否收到。很敬佩你有仁者的情怀。

顺颂

大安！

安徽读者顿首

陈兄钧鉴:

初次通信，不知称为兄长是否合适，写这封信事由看到兄在联合早报上的文章《中国农村的孩子们》有感，说心里话，虽不知兄是哪里人（大陆，港澳台，或新加坡等）深为兄内心的人文情怀和人道关怀所佩，兄真正看到中国农村的一个大问题，留守儿童的自卑，贫穷，内心空虚，时常遭人欺凌等等。想来兄以前的教育必完整，您不仅拥有一般科学知识，更可贵的是拥有一颗知识分子思考社会，悲天悯人的善良之心，文章不长，字里行间所透露的真挚情感使我久久回味。

其实这也与我的经历有关，我来自湖北的一个产粮大县，现在上海的大学读研究生，想起家乡的情形，与兄在文中所指非常相似，我是一个小镇上的，不是来自农村，但有很多农村的同学，又经常到农村去玩，所以也很了解，很多留守儿童从小与爷爷奶奶辈的老人在一起，他们普遍的性格就是孤僻，偏激，内向，不懂尊重他人和自尊，我想孩子是没有错的，使他们从小长期与父母分离，在学校的一些城市同学又瞧不起，爷爷奶奶不懂如何教育，一味去溺爱，我经常听说他们之间的一些伤害案件的发生，近些年来越来越多，并且现在还出现了新问题，地方上把高中卖给企业经营，导致大量师资流失，大量学生因为高额学费失学，高中未读，农村孩子没上完高中就出去打工，城市孩子不愿去打工，沦落本地成为混混流氓的后备军，导致社会治安被严重破坏，去年回乡时就发生了两起血案，警匪勾结等等，我每当看到农村同学在外打工稚嫩的背影，看到街头巷尾，网吧闹市穿梭的混混和耳边时常听说的血案，失望，伤心，失落，这就是我们这么多年发展的结果？为了利益，不顾道德法度的疯狂追逐，人群中普遍的不安全感，其实每个人都是那样的孤独。

我说这么多，不是我消极的态度，我的性格告诉我，抱怨是没有用的，我一定要去改变他，看到陈兄的积极行动，我要说声感谢，我也要行动起来，去抚平留守儿童的创伤，去把流落街头的孩子劝回学校，去帮助社会建立一个公正的法制，和关怀每一个人的人道关怀体系，因为多少个夜晚，我的泪已经流干了，我一定帮他们获得自尊和尊重他人的健全人格。看到陈兄，看到了社会的良心的希望。

此致

敬礼！

读了你的文章，感觉你是一个有社会责人感的人。我在农村任教十多年，为了养家糊口时常感觉自己在教学过程中扭曲了学生的灵魂，让他们来承担国家体制加在教师身上的压力。没有一个孩子喜欢学习，为了父母不可抗拒的命令他们坐在教室里，为了每一堂课都可能失去的自尊，他们在挣扎。一个生活在谎言、专制环境里的孩子长大后会成为一个正直为公的人吗？我常想把自己经历的学校生活写出来，可我需要这分工作，我便做了教育的帮凶。

你好，我看了你在联合早报上的文章《中国农村的孩子》很感动，因为我就是来自于农村，你说的我都能感受到。虽然有时真的很辛苦，但一切都会好起来的，不是吗？呵呵

在联合早报上看了你《中国农村的孩子们》一文，思潮起伏。带给我强烈的思想共鸣。

非常赞赏你对这个普遍社会现象的忧虑和见解。若中国教育改革继续流于形式，在可预期的十年二十年间，这必将衍生演绎成关乎中国前途命运的严重社会问题。

非常希望看到你对这个课题的持续关注。

阅读了你的文章让我有更深一成的体会。几个月前，

我在图书馆看了一本关于贫穷大学生的求学过程，他们的经历实在叫人感动。我认为只要社会上能出现更多愿意帮助他们的人，至少能做到雪中送炭，极少成多的成绩。 因此，有心人士要继续加油了：—) 帮助这些学生的当儿，我以为我们要鼓励他们永远保持着一颗赤子之心。在他们事业有成的一天，鼓励他们能以过来人的身份资助其他贫苦学生。这样，拯救孩子就学的团队就会更强大，问题也会尽快解决。

我看你的文章，只是冰山一角，但我深深的感受下一代的悲痛，我无语，我们无法去面对我们的下一代，我心中很酸，因为我深有体会!

你好：
我是一个陌生人，如有打扰还请见谅。
在联合早报网上看到了你的那篇文章——《中国农村的孩子们》，便决定写这封信。
在我的生活经历中有这样的事情，它之于我有什么样的意义我一直都不敢正视。我家的邻居有个很求上进的姐姐，成绩在她的同学中也是一等一的。初中毕业后她很想继续念书，可是家坚决不支持。那是时我还在小学，我的父母也为她说情。
最后，她还是没能达成她的心愿。她的父母内心也有深深地愧意。可是，这愧意因为那位姐姐一直以来的抱怨而转嫁到我这来了。他们说是我“把家都念穷了”。我家境还不如她家，可是一直念着书......在我高中的时光中，父母含辛茹苦，弟弟也因我的缘故放弃了学业。我考上一所不错的大学之后，他们都沉默了 ，甚至见到我在路边站着他们都要绕道走。有时候，我也会怨恨他们那时的嘲笑，可是现在成熟起来，竟为他们感到难过。
这个故事与你写的那篇关于留守孩子的不一样，但是，那些孩子内心的辛酸我是能体会到的。让我欣慰的是，我家乡现在的境况已经好多了。孩子很少忍受离别之痛。学习的条件也很好。
感激这一切！
祝好运常在！

感谢你的善举,中国农村的唯一出路就是在教育,我也是想做一些自己力所能及的事,去帮助一些需要帮助的人,有什么需要,多联系我

最惨的是这些在城里打工的农民工子女, 他们在城市里面上的民工子弟学校简直破烂不堪, 北京的冬天这么冷,那些农民工学校连暖气都没有, 房子也是临时建筑,不保暖. 教学和师资情况就更别谈了. 政府现在强调民生问题,为什么不能解决农民工子女就学问题?

陈老弟：
看了你在《联合早报》上的文章《中国农村的孩子们》，有些感触。我就是从农村来到城里的，上大学后也与你一样属于心智不太成熟的，也给家乡农村的孩子们上过课，开展过扶贫。现在农村问题很多，但总体来说，发展很大，与我们大学毕业之前变化很大，希望你有机会到我家乡（黄山市休宁县）去看看、侃侃。

兄弟：
你好！
为你的所作所为感到骄傲！现世的中国确实有许多这样那样的问题，这也是为什么我们需要不断的改革的主要原因，社会的进步也是一这些矛盾和问题的解决为基点，聚少成多，由量变发展到质变！让我们值得高兴的是，现世的中国像你这样有个性的甘于奉献的人越来越多。去年的地震救援是一次集中体现。而且这股力量正在不断成长！我对我们国家和民族的未来是充满信心的！

好样的！ 继续深入、长期的关注农村的孩子们！

炜雄先生：
你好！我是工作在中国大别山腹地的一名农村初中老师。我们学校距离县城90公里。看到你写在《联合早报》上的文章《中国农村的孩子们》，很感动.为你的社会责任感而感动！我也想代表所有你牵挂的那些孩子们对你说一声，谢谢！
我熟悉农村，更熟悉这些孩子们，深知他们的需要和现状，所以就想着和你聊聊。现今中国的农村孩子的生活你无法想象有多艰难。我们学校是一所乡镇初中，在当地学校中规模最大，集中了全乡的初中生在这里生活学习。学校现有419个同学，26个老师。学生们全部在学校寄宿。每周日下午，其中的一部分，要徒步20公里左右来到学校，你想不到的是，有的孩子身上还要背着两样东西，一袋大米4公斤左右，还有两盆咸菜。他们在学校里一周的生活靠这两样东西维持。学校各有10间男女生宿舍，每间生活着20多个同学，你猜不到的是每间宿舍的面积，一间房子长5.5米，宽，3.2米。每个同学摊不上一个平方。孩子们睡觉的地方是用横木搭建的“通铺”，还分上下层。即使有木床，一张一米宽的木床也要睡下两个初生。
尽管这样，孩子们没怨过学校，没怨过老师，他们在学校起早贪黑的为着理想而努力，每到冬天，没有一个孩子的手皮是完整的，都生了冻疮。我上课最怕看到学生的双手，因为让我揪心。
不瞒你说，我鼓励孩子们时说的最多的就是要好好努力，长大了最好在城市里能找份工作。我知道我不应该如此直率的去告诉他们长大了要远离家乡，而应该从实现人生价值这方面去激励他们，可从现实来看，我最大的愿望就是他们以后大了别再这么苦。因为同在蓝天下的他们真的不该这样可怜的。
好了，以后咱们再聊！盼回音，祝快乐！

今天在《联合早报》看到你发表的《中国农村的孩子们》一文，非常感动！因为我曾是其中的一份子，只不过我已经熬过那段童年时光，已于2006年从大学毕业，现已走上工作岗位。非常感谢你给大陆留守儿童所给予的帮助！非常感谢！
唐突致信于你，我还是做个自我介绍吧。我家乡是湖北省一个典型的农村。家乡因地理位置较好，家乡人民又“下海”的比较早，所以家乡经济条件还过的去，不过毕竟处于内陆，也好不到哪里去，你文章中提到的现象在我们村也很常见。我06年毕业于中南财经政法大学，算是跳出了农门，不过至今仍处水深火热之中——革命尚未成功，同志仍需努力！我2007年跳槽来到深圳，后又跳到深圳的另一家公司，今年3月被公司外派到河南，现身处郑州，常驻河南省，与你所处之香港应有千里之遥吧。看了你的文章，非常感动！不仅因为我曾是留守儿童，更因为你为留守儿童所做的一切是我曾经梦想要做的事，只是至今没有那个精力和实力，以后条件允许了肯定会为农村的孩子们做点什么。再次感谢你为内地留守儿童所做的一切！希望以后能够保持联系，多多交流，也希望我尽早具备能为农村儿童做些事情的实力，那时我可能会向你请教这方面的经验。

你对农村孩子的关心让我很自然地把你当作国人了。

很赞同你的一些看法，但目前中国对于“软性”的心灵与精神需要的问题，确实还不够重视，或许她的发展还没有精力顾及到。如果鼓励更多的非政府组织参与进来，会对工作起很好的推动作用，中国确实应该在社会服务与公民社会方面，借鉴西方的一些好做法。

我本人也长期关注农村，关注农村孩子，我是做新闻的，我们节目这几年策划了“映山红行动”，为安徽10所农村学校募捐了10万册图书，10万元现金，帮助他们建立了图书室；为20所农村学校募捐了价值10万元的体育器材，10万元现金；在10所学校建立了“留守儿童工作站”，为它们添置了电话和7万元的电话卡，以及价值两万多元的图书、玩具等。4月份，我们新的一期活动又要开展。

农村的事情太多，除了教育的，还有环保等等。我的家乡很偏远，在新安江源头，山青水绿，可现在都面临垃圾污染，让人非常痛心，我希望能在农村，特别是水源地农村的环境保护方面做些探索和试验，这是非常重要的，可政府似乎也没有顾及到这些。期待与你进行深入交流！
有机会上我为家乡做的网站：www.liugujian.com 多提宝贵意见和建议！

Email exchange stemming from ZB report on《中国不高兴》

Mail from a friend:

I wonder which is the lesser of two evils with regards to the mentality of the masses : Apathy (which the writer of this article seems to suggest is a reassurance for the world and China) or this raging nationalism. Coming from a cultural criticism perspective, I do find some comfort in the unapologetic honesty of nationalism (haven't read the book but i can sort of guess what its overall tone is like). As cultural critics carefully and definitely politically-correctly tread around issues of orientalism (then self-orientalism), eurocentricism, occidentalism and globalization , it seems there will be no ready solution for the ideological dilemna China is facing. Post-colonialism or post-revolution discourse is a fun read for intellectuals who love to second-guess, but somehow it seems like masturbation more than anything else. I speculate : China wittingly or unwittingly breeds all these different players to form her global stance - The peace-loving intellectuals, the apathetic masses, the pseudo-nationalists that do not practise what they preach, the true nationalists (minority) who guards her national pride violently and the pragmatic economic Chinese who is almost coolly level-headed and works towards their interests. Each player has its role to play and its all about balance.

Just a random thought.


My response:

Hello,

Well seriously anything that appears as a set of binaries is always deceiving to the mind, since usually a spectrum exists for any social issues. You are right in the presence of "different players", though I wouldn't dare say if they were truly 'bred' by China. But I think such dynamism is enjoyable, at least from an intellectual and socio-cultural perspective. In fact, with 'social activists with real agendas to propagate' added to the diversity you described, it is the make-up of Hong Kong society in my eyes. China is too large for such an issue to be within grasp by the mind, but certainly I think Zheng Yong Nian from our East Asian Institute is right in that this is time to spark debates once again. But this time, it will be different from arguments among intellectuals in early 20C or CCP-directed politically-charged "kou hao" of btw 1949 to 1978. In fact, my impression is that this is a big debate that has its beginnings in the early 1980s, which was eventually side-tracked and put off till today by the Tiananmen incident. And I would think the mode of discussion should also be different this time round.

As for cultural criticism you mentioned, I love your analogy of masturbation. Cultural criticism has been borrowing too much concepts from political science and sociology and turning them into monsters that neither fully describe the cultural dilemmas we face in the East, nor liberate researchers from their own intellectual cages. The paradox that is surfacing, in my opinion, is that on the one hand, many sociological and political issues (which are more 'tangible' as they truly involve how people live as individuals and in groups) end up being 'ideologicized' to the extent they become too metaphysical; but on the other hand that is how the creation of ideology is how you end up having cultural norms and identities - and such 'intangible' understanding of the Self is still important in knowing who we are and for informing policies. Back to Singapore, that is the dilemma I face when I try to conceptualize the "Chineseness" of Singaporeans and how we can eventually continue to enrich ethno-culturalism within the borders of national identity and economic pre-requisites. My opinion is that we need to recognize these issues for informing curriculum (esp post-primary CL) and other social movements like the existence of clans & associations, speak Mandarin campaigns, and ultimately the whole move towards forming a learning culture that truly involves parents and their children.

In addition, one note about "orientalism (then self-orientalism), eurocentricism, occidentalism and globalization" is that these theories are still relevant. We have NOT reached the stage when we can eliminate East-West differences, other than on the economic front (and perhaps even not totally homogeneous in this arena). Some may say that the problem now lies in that the rise of China is going to move the scale from orientalism to occidentalism, or that globalization is helping to bridge understanding. My own take is that there is still a long way to go, especially for literary and cultural theorists, because eventually the exchanges and flow of ideas are still on philosophy i.e. the 'thoughts' itself, but what we need is to increase the vocabulary for describing Chinese epistemology i.e. HOW the thoughts came about, aka the logic of Chinese thought. 张隆溪 has an impressive book known as 《道与逻各斯》, and the discussions about 'laws' and logos (movement between ideas or ideos) are insightful, but we need to extend this beyond Literature. Cultural critics, in particular, need to borrow from Zhang's and re-examine the whole basis of their discipline. Otherwise, the East-West strife can never be crossed because at any one time at least one party is still feeling 'disadvantaged' psychologically. My view is that the nationalism issue in China can partly be attributed to the lack of ability of Chinese intellectuals to produce academic fruit for export and to influence or speak to their Western counterparts on equal footing in, I emphasize, a Western setting. That is why those in China who can speak rationally cannot talk Reason either to the masses or to people beyond their cultural boundaries. All I ask for is an Immanuel Kant of the East, but I wonder if we can produce that in the age of post-modernism where all over the world we are to different extents subject to the Foucaultian nightmare of discourse and power in 'civilized' societies, including China that is trying to walk its own 'Chinese characteristics' path politically and ideologically.

Bear

不知怎的，怀念京都

时代的转舵：从“群体”到“群体中的我”

内地最近出了本《中国不高兴》的新书，《联合早报》报道说，有些读者认为是“敢为今世开太平”，而很大一部份的中国人，包括社科院的学者，则对它嗤之以鼻。

我不知道，究竟大部分的中国人不买这本书，是因为真的认为自己的国家已经走出了《中国可以说不》的时代，或是纯粹对该书从以意识形态和”中西对立”的姿态出发感到厌烦（就如普遍上对中共“思想工作”的自觉疏远与排斥）。如果问我，我估计不会花血汗钱去买，但闲暇时我倒不介意去图书馆借来翻阅。只因为，我觉得那本书中涉及到的问题，如中国在世界上的地位、西方世界对中国的芥蒂、国内民族主义等，都是有讨论价值的。问题往往在于讨论的方式。

我眼中的中国人，不再稀罕那些从“群体”层面出发来宏观讨论社会问题的言论，除非作者能够提供一些惊为天人的原始史料或研究数据作为佐证（如在内地被禁、在香港狂销、在网上广传、谈“三年自然灾害”的《墓碑》）。估计，他们更容易被柏杨《丑陋的中国人》或是王小波一类的文章吸引。这是现代思想的路数：每个人都在“个体化”，但由于东方社会强调人与人之间的关系（犹如基督教中与神之间那份无法割舍的联系），因此大家都是彼此相连的一个个的“自己”。周作人一百年前那“个人主义的人间本位”，估计放到当下，仍有“名名”的价值。

两年前读马塞尔-毛斯（Marcel Mauss）的《社会学与人类学》，对“完整社会事实”、“象征实体”等概念大多一知半解。但思考之神常牵引我在人生之梦与梦之人生中，借由理性与艺术的力量，从感知的现象中去领悟抽象概念的意义。于是，越来越明白，在这种思想转型的格局下，评论写作的角度，应走微观社会学的路，相信每个人自身都是一个宇宙。谈任何的社会问题，不再只能停留在“群体”，而需要迈向“群体中的我”。作者与读者之间，是一对一的“交谈”。社会课题，不能存在于“作者之外”，更不能让读者觉得，怎么“我”就包括在你谈到问题之中，而身为作者的“你”反而如同处于天国的宙斯（Zeus），置身事外而不断对“我”抛掷神圣的闪电。

也许，越是“后现代”的社会，就越需要这种同理心。奥巴马（竞选时）散发的领袖气质，不也是因为这个吗？

自信、权力、后现代迷茫

在知识的象牙塔里，本人是极度谦卑的。因为，越是相信自己的一套，就越容易发觉原来自己视野狭隘。

说到底，我只不过是想当个“穿新衣的国王”罢了。王子病，是克服傲气与跋扈，迈向谦虚而不自卑，自信而不固执的方法。毕竟，我已经被自己思想的矛盾与经常碰见的死角一次次摔得渐渐失去自信。我能自信的，应该只是自知自己无知吧。但同时，我却也不能不对诸事形成自己的看法和观点。要为人民服务的人，不得不逼着自己成长。

真正令人钦佩的，到底还是知识与智慧。权力，不外只是把难以被辩论折服的知识，化为现实的具体手段罢了。有时，我情愿不去拥有权力，却发觉那是因为要逃避某种我无法辞去的责任。也许，即使没有成为scholar，我也始终希望做点什么，而既然我必将对自己关注的问题有所反思，我必将寻求把思想化为行动的power。而如今背负了纳税人给的“米”在外国呆了这一阵子，还“人情”更是理所当然、顺理成章的。

至于那些由理性推理而说我被政治权力洗脑，折服于执政党所设下的“陷阱”的人，或是那些认为“个人自由”重要过一切的有志之士，我也只能说，也许他们正处于一个自己都看不见的后现代“理性陷阱”里。也许，这也正是这个时代可怕的地方：它让原本合理、服务于社会运作的一切价值与规则，露出它们或多或少将我们“定式化”的本质，而名之为“枷锁”。

于是，我们总要挣脱，便开始对历史以及在时间的河流中堆积起的一切，化为“古板”的“化石”，奢望河水再次清浊无比。殊不知，恒河的颗颗沙粒都是珍贵的，无边无际的大海反而容易令人畏惧。

在某种程度上，我们大部分人，或许都已经成为了不折不扣的free-thinker：相信一切的宗教，却否定一切宗教的教规戒律。于是，我们下不了地狱，亦上不了天堂；而人世间，尽是些游离的飘魂……

How good it feels~

得到自己崇敬的资深教授赏识，被邀请跟他一起念博士，虽然事与愿违，但仍如此荣幸，亦如此快活……