我要下流！－－時間往那裡去了？

年多前看了養老孟司的《傻瓜的圍牆》（2003）和三浦展的《下流社會》（2005），留下一點筆記，剛剛看完內田樹的《下流志向：為什麼孩子不上學、不工作》（黃靜儀譯，台北：麥田，2008），內容同樣發人深省。

內田樹借用諏訪取二的《唯我獨尊的孩子們》（オレ化様する子供とち）等值交易論解釋日本學童逃避學習和逃避勞動的現象。

單看目錄，已可知其內容梗概（很多書都做不到這一點），例如：討厭讀書的日本學童；對自己的學力低下毫無自覺；對不了解的事完全無動於衷；「老師，學這個有什麼用？」；家庭勞動教育的消失；教育服務的消費者；一種名為不悅的貨幣；不悅貨幣的起源：家庭裡的不悅爭奪戰；變賣未來的孩子；完全不讀書，卻自信滿滿；學力低下也是「努力的結果」；勞動是創造超額價值的表現；風險社會裡的弱者等等。以下摘錄令我最深刻的內容，加一點評論：

--- --- --- --- ---

日本憲法明定國民：「享有勤勞之權利，並負勤勞之義務。」（頁6）　（濤曰：香港法律和基本法有類似的條文嗎？）

逃避學習，逃避勞動。前者是指現代的孩子認為受教育是不值一提的權利而輕易放棄，以致從「受教育的權利」底下逃避的開心與成就感。（頁6）　（權利難道是如此的一文不值？）

只要同齡層學力集體下降越多，競爭的負擔就越輕。（頁16）　（所謂拉curve害人，就是這個意思）

他們得意洋洋地說：「老師說的我沒興趣」、「老師說什麼我聽不懂」，兩句話輕而易舉地完全否定老師授課的內容。（頁18）　（遇上這樣的大學生也是無可奈何。。。）

對於不懂的事物，並不會感受到任何壓力。（頁24）他們把「自己不懂的事物」視為「不存在」的事物。（頁25）　（老實說，學童有太多不懂，社會又要他們樣樣學懂，難道不是「社會的錯」嗎？）

孩子日後無論碰到什麼事情，都會先問：「這對我有什麼幫助？可以帶來什麼『好處』？」如果答案令他滿意，就「接受」；反之，則「拒絕」。這個接受與否的基準，在人生的早期階段，就已內化在心中了。（頁33）　（當長輩和家長也抱著這種心態的時候，如何要求孩子？）

孩子在就學以前即自我確立為消費的主體。（頁34）　（這可以解釋學童入學第一天例必要呼天搶地的原因－－要當水魚）

現在的孩子無法以勞動主體的型態獲得社會認同，成為獨立的個體。（頁36）　（勞動的是傭人的工作）

現在大概有一半以上的孩子，生平第一次的社會經驗就是購物消費。。。「只要有錢，人人平等。」（頁38）　（錢是透明的，不會用有色眼鏡看人，是「最公平」的朋友，難怪三歲到八十歲都愛）

自此之後，無論處於什麼情況，孩子都會以「消費者」的身分自居，與人接觸時，總是設法先讓自己定位在消費主體的立場上。（頁39）　（終有一天，孩子到消委會投訴父母「貨不對辦」）

等值交易的最大特徵，即買方相當熟悉自己所購買的商品。。。對消費主體而言，沒有任何商品是「自己無法了解其用途與價值何在」的。因此一個以消費主體自居的孩子，向老師提出「學習平假名有什麼用處」，是極其自然的事。（頁40）　（想起劉德華的「服務態度」廣告）

對於學校教育中所教授的大部分內容，孩子其實還無法理解其價值與意義。。。教育的意義在於學習者必須在接受某種程度的教育後，有時甚至是教育過種結束後，才能了解自己從中獲得哪些助益。（頁42）　（現代教育大多拒絕相信這一套）

教室裡能夠使用的籌碼就只有一個－－那就是「不悅」。。。並與教師所提供的教育服務進行等值交易。（頁43-44）　（想起學生的臭臉）

在家庭裡，以「誰最不開心」來衡量「誰對家庭的建立最有貢獻」。（頁51）　（變態的家庭）

「學習」無法以等值交易的空間模式呈現，「學習」是與時間有關的現象。而且每一種「學習」都是建立在時間性的關係上，無一例外。（頁56）　（那個不想過目不忘）

學生表明某個學術領域是不是值得學習，決定權掌握在他自己手中。。。個人判斷的正確性，實際上存在著「連帶保證人」就是「未來的我」。支持「學這個有什麼用」這個功利問題的論題，就是「自己決定 ‧ 自己負責」。。。正是這類「自我」的思考模式，大量造就了賤價拋售自己未來的孩子。（頁69-70）　（變賣未來的我可比喻為信用咭）

所謂「風險化」指的是，社會的不確定性增加，而個人對於未來生活預測的精準度也越來越低。（頁74）風險化社會中，光靠學歷不能保證一定能夠獲得對等的職業，得到與學歷相當的工作的人與得不到的人之間產生了不當的差異。。。風險社會必向兩極化靠攏，意即在努力付出這方面，雖然僅有小小的差異，卻造成回饋結果有天壤之別。（頁75）　（反倒令我想起曾在中學任教的大學同學遇上傲慢的同屆同事（畢業於另一大學），被嘲諷「殊途同歸」）

風險社會中存在的風險並非由全體社會成員公平承擔，而是不同社會階層，存在著風險上的差異。而且，認定自己的生存跟努力與成果完全沒有關係，覺得「再怎麼努力也沒用」的人，正承擔著最大風險。（頁77）　（補充一點；大家都想將風險轉駕到別人身上）

唯有認同風險的人，才能接受努力與成果之間的不確定性，並深刻理解這是風險社會的常態，也才能夠採取行動，巧妙降低風險。（頁78）　（這些都是沉默的一群）

在實險的風險社會裡，能貫徹自己決定、自己負責的強者並不存在，存在的只是忠實奉行「自己決定 ‧ 自己負責」的弱者而已。（頁100） （弱肉強食很殘忍，是的）

現代教育的問題，並非單純只是孩子學力低下的問題而已；這不是因為孩子怠惰而導致的結果，而是他們努力的成果。（頁108）　（努力下流！）

如果事情是透過自由意志而決定，即使這個決定為自己帶來不利的後果也無所謂。（頁113）　（這與「雖千萬人，吾往矣」的氣概是兩碼子的事）

勞動主體得到他人的認同，接著構成主體及他人的整個網絡也將改變。因此，從付出勞動到整個網絡的重建之間，是需要時間的。（頁128）　（時間，總是時間）

消費行為本質上是一種沒有時間變化的行為。（頁129）消費活動的基礎是等值交換。「等值」的重點在於「無時間性」，因此，只有捨去時間因素，「等值」才能成立。。。將勞動視為消費行為的年輕人也選擇了「逃避勞動」，他們忘了勞動行為必須同時考量「時間」因素。（頁130）勞動的本質是一種創造超額價值的表現。（頁131） （學習需要時間，勞動也需要時間，消費不需要。難道大家都沒有時間嗎？時間往那裡去了？）

Crisis in the Humanities II

The other articles I was reading are Monika Fludernik's "Threatening the university - the liberal arts and the economization of culture" (pp. 57-70), Rey Chow's "'An addiction from which we never get free' (pp. 47-55), Elizabeth Freeman's "Monster, Inc.: notes on the neoliberal arts education" (pp. 83-95), Susan Stewart's "Thoughts on the role of the humanities in contemporary life" (pp. 97-103).

Fludernik contends that the crisis in the humanities "is a direct result o the radical economization processes affecting culture in Western society; and, second, that these process affect not only the humanities but all disciplines with the exception of the applied sciences (on which the economic model of the university is, after all, based)." (p. 57)

Stewart rightly observes that "[w]e cannot expect individuals to care about what is far from them in time and space more intensely than they care about what is near, nor would such facile empathy necessarily be desirable for those who receive it." (p. 98) Her "third world" economy metaphor for the unfavourable and disadvantaged humanities departments of many universities forces us not to care more.

I found Chow's article most revealing because of above all its title about the very nature of humanistic knowledge: "an addiction from which we never get free", and her drawing relevance on Hong Kong based on her Hong Kong background and observation.

"Hong Kong is simply one of many places in the world today where it is much less the deliberate and reflective search for knowledge than the expedient access to information that defines what it means to know - what it means, in other words, to be socially connected, because copiously 'informed,' human being." (p. 49) Given that Chow graduated from HKU with English and Comparative Literature majors three decades ago, She openly confesses that "[g]rowing up in Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s, young people of my generation were keenly aware of the impracticability of a course of learning in Chinese poetry, history, or philosophy." (p. 51)

The biggest challenge we all face today is "the manifestation of a process characteristic of globalization - the transformation of knowledge itself into information. What the so-called instrumentalization of knowledge highlights is what the phrase says: the turning of knowledge into an instrument or a tool that can then be used for a specific, identifiable end." (p. 49) Furthermore, "the informationalization of knowledge casts knowledge rather in the form of an infinite flow, the crucial aspect of which is not so much substance as continuous movement, instant disposability, and, massive inputs notwithstanding, a constant need for replenishment." (p. 50. emphasis original)

Crisis in the Humanities I

Economic turndown hits not only business sector but education, and even worse in the field of humanities in particular. Even if the crisis did not strike on the economy, this topic has been, for decades and even centuries, so obsolete that I have heard almost day by day from my colleagues, friends and students.

After reading Allan Bloom's classic The Closing of the American Mind (1987), which I happened to flip through from my philosphy-major cousin's bookself nearly a decade ago, I again chanced to read a few more articles on this topic whilst browsing the journal New Literary History.

It might be true that the humanities are "with neither the urgency of the local nor the grand significance of the global" (Geoffrey Galt Harpham, "Beneath and beyond the 'crisis in the humanities'," New Literary History, vol. 36 (2005), pp. 21-36, p. 21). Below are excerpts from Harpham's article:

"humanistic scholars, fragmented and confused about their mission, suffer from an inability to convey to those on the outside and even to some on the inside the specific value they offer to public culture; they suffer, that is, from what the scholar and critic Louis Menand calls a 'crisis of rationales.'" (p. 22)

"If traditional rationale for humanistic study were to be condensed into a single sentence, that sentence might be the following: The scholarly study of documetns and artifacts prouced by human beings in the past enables us to see the world from different points of view so that we may better understand ourselves...the sentence contains three distinct premises, that the humanities have the text as their object, humanity as their subject, and self-understanding as their purpose." (p. 23. emphasis original)

"All texts are written from within some cultural tradition, and most groups or individuals look to the archive of the past for keys to their heritage and thus to their identity...texuality...is organized around the principle of universal communication across time and space, and constitutes a continuous and theoretically unbounded archive." (p. 25)

"[T]he humanities is defined by its concern with the subject of humanity. Humanists...treat their subjects...as self-aware individuals conscious of their existence. Humanistic knowledge is centered in texts (in the broadest sense of the term) produced by human beings engagedin the process of reflecting on their lives. At the core of the humanities is the distinctively human capacity to imagine, to interpret, and to represent the human experience." (p. 27)

"the humanistic approach begins with the assumption that the text requires multiple explanations, each of which might be an answer to a different question." (p. 29)

"under the presumption that human behavior and expression are bottomless in their depth, humanistic study produces not certain but uncertain knowledge, knowledge that solicits its own revision in an endless process of refutation, contestation, and modification. Humanists aspire to speak the truth, but none would wish to have the very last word, for sucha triumphant conclusion would bring an end not just to the conversation but to the discipline itself." (p. 30. emphasis original)

"humanistic study inculcates a heightened awareness of our power over the past...[i]n humanistic study, we confront not just our ancestors but also our own capacity for determining who our ancestors were, and thus for determining who we are or might become." (p. 31)

"Reading about people may enrich our imaginative experience, but reading words in search of the human presence behind them strengthens our imaginative capacity, forcing us to reenact in our own minds the drama of other minds and even to feel their thoughts and sensations as if they were our own." (p. 32)

"Humanists ought, I believe, to get in the habit of articulating the possible relations between the work they do and some purpose the nonacademic public can understand. There is, of course, no guarantee that the public will approve of that purpose or the means of achieving it, but if the case is not made, the public can hardly be blamed for its indifference or even its distrust...[t]he humanities should represent both the conservation and accurate transmissionof the past and the imaginative cultivation of the future." (p. 36)

The infamous myths of HK II - population density

I simply wikied for the answer and I was not disappointed.

First of all, I was redirected to list of countries and dependencies by population density. Leading the way is our neighbour Macau, with 18,705 inhibitants per square kilometre (km²). Close behind is Monaco (16,905/km²) followed by Singapore (far behind with "only" 6,814/km²) and Hong Kong.

Should Hong Kong (6,326/km²) outnumber Singapore by 500 people/km², Hong Kong will be among the top three. In fact, the total population of the top two cities (579,165) are even less than Kwun Tong (587,423) alone and thus it might be reasonable to exclude non-million-population cities. In other words, Hong Kong is no. 2! I was thrilled (because of the accurate claim rather than the rank itself).

Cross checking of various sources is a common and good practice of enquiry. However, should I not have cross-checked for the truth, I would have good faith in official textbook and not be heart-broken.

Again, I wikied and was linked to the curious list of cities proper by population density. Scrolling quickly from the top to the bottom of the page (top 40 in total), I found only Macau (no. 21 only!) and Hong Kong was nowhere. Anxious. Word search for HK, none. Frustrated.

I was completely shocked by the misleading claim (among the top densest cities). It was an absolute hoax. Pathetic.

幹麼？要我施捨給你？

網上轉載了曹仁超在Milk第406期（4月30日）的專訪，我的留言如下：

曹仁超說得出口就知道會成為眾矢之的。

世代相爭的討論越來越多，曹仁超這上一代終於要走出來反撲。

他面對年青一代說出了心底話：幹麼在位的就一定要讓位。是的,社會和經濟體系和政治體系不一樣，沒有所謂民主，更枉論讓位。他告訴讀書太多的年青人，禪讓是不切實際的。這是事實。

作為一群沒有受過大學教育，平步進入政務主任系統或中高等教育體系，繼而成為界定知識和道德的體制內的社會中上層，但又因為找到賺錢新出路，透過當時的新媒體和新娛樂（報紙、電視、電影等），操控和製造譽論，繼而炒樓炒股票發達的體制外的社會中上層的代表，曹仁超當之無愧。

呂大樂的討論其實只限於上世代的所謂成功人士，沒有沾上皮毛的，我認為有兩群，一是在教育制度的派糖遊戲中失敗，但一樣有能力有運氣有人脈攀上體制外的社會中上層，曹仁超可謂表表者；二是兩者皆空的低下層，而其中又可分為兩類：幸運的，其下一代在新一輪派糖遊戲中勝出，正慢慢進入中層（不過也要中伏：供樓），不幸運的，下一代一樣要成為低下層（有公屋住算是幸運）。先不論後者，只要看看公園在賽馬日的景況，可知一二。 曹仁超代表的是，他們既不是三師，所依賴的又不是學位，而是他夫子自道：「如何在不犯法的情況之下發財」（他沒有叫人犯法。這是香港可愛可敬的地方）。這一點正中我們這一代的要害。中小學教品德，有時操行重重緊要過成績；大學教操守，專業操守（近有城大和臻美的專業操守問題）和網絡道德（陶傑也告誡有網暴）是必修知識。新媒體新娛樂新網絡，有那一樣沒有衝擊固有的道德價值？

曹仁超的話，反而令我多少同情（不是同感）他們那一代人的道德匱乏，也正正指出新一代的不足。這令我想起，早陣子有旅行社高調邀請家長陪廿歲出頭的成年子女應徵導遊。旅行社明顯的宣傳企圖固且不論，關鍵在於，只有知識但沒有社會經驗的大學畢業生，如何勝任一項不是口說接受挑戰或懂得應變就可以的導遊工作，需要的是另一套知識和能力。這種知識和能力近於曹仁超的思路（「如何在不犯法的情況之下發財」），可以說是街頭常識和能力（不只是社會知識），在外地（尤其是大陸）面對不可思義的無理待遇時，有時是需要拍抬發窮惡的（這裏沒有貶低導遊工作的意思）。大學畢業生如何勝任？不是紆尊降貴就可以做得到，而是根本沒有這種能力。隨著教育分化日劇，有些工作，正學位畢業生就越是做不來。