the fate of the humanities

The humanities has been in crisis for more than a century. Corporate interests and values are eroding the ideals of the liberal arts and transforming the university into a thoroughly businesslike workplace. Humanists, as I myself am, are always there to defend our values and endeavour to awaken people souls and mind.

In his The last professors : the corporate university and the fate of the humanities (New York : Fordham University Press, 2008), Frank Donoghue rightly upholds that the terms of today's hostilities are the product of a long evolution, and that the batter will not end abruptly any time soon. In other words, I would say, it is necessary to forget unrealistic hope and be firm with our values.

At the heyday of American industrialization at the turn of the twentieth century, two prominent industrialists Andrew Carnegie and Richard Teller Crane represented the earliest and sharpest critics of liberal arts education. Carnegie considered traditionally educated students as "adapted for life on another planet" whereas Crane joined him by adding that no man who has "a taste for literature has the right to be happy because "the only men entitled to happiness in this world are those who are useful"; in other words, liberal arts students who pursue "impractical, special knowledge of literature, art, language or history" were not entitled to be so. (p. 4-6)

It's sometimes depressing to teach on the one hand (I hope you know what I mean) ; and, on the other hand, it could also be very fulfilling to teach a handful of serious faces who are eager to learn more about the topic/field you are most interested. Donoghue quotes, from some sources, a few magic moments in the classroom rewarding enough to offset the down side of teaching:

"I love the energy of the classroom and those special moments when I can do something good, when I see their eyes glowing and their faces shining, knowing that I am teaching them, I am doing something worthwhile."

"The rewards of teaching may be intermittent and transparent...It take only one serious inquiry, one student who genuinely wants to know why a certain painting looks the way it does...a single pair of shining eyes in your dim classroom that conceals out all the dulled ones...those brief flames in your teaching week are a kind of fuel. They are enough to sustain you from class to class. There are moments when...you feel that you're not speaking into the void the way you thought, that you are having en effect on how people think about life and reading." (p. 64)

The Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA's survey of incoming freshmen has asked its respondents to rank 20 goals that they hope to achieve by going to college. In 1971, the top three answers were "to help others who are in difficulty" (68.5%), "to become an authority in my field" (66%), and "to keep up to date on politics" (57.8%).

In 2001, the survey found that "being very well-off financially" (fifth in 1971) topped the list at 73%, "to help others who are in difficulty" had slipped to 61.5%, while "keep up to date with political affairs" had dropped to 28.1%. What does the change imply? Donoghue rightly argues that today's student, on the one hand, have been forced to approach college as apolitical egoists; and, on the other, they see college primarily as an investment in their personal financial future, the expense of which must ultimately be justified. (p. 91)

讀陳之藩二

繼《在春風裡》後，我捧起《劍河倒影》和《時空之海》，都是牛津香港版（2003及2004）。

《時空之海》收集陳之藩從上世紀八、九十年代至現世紀初二十多年間，寫於波士頓、台南和香港的散文，所以叫做《時空之海》。

《時空之海》共有十六篇散文（含序）：

1. 一百與一百二十五－－談愛因斯坦致羅斯福的一封信
2. 進步與保守
3. 時間的究竟－－序《愛因斯坦的夢》
4. 三部自傳－－哈代、溫納與戴森
5. 時空之海－－布萊克的一幅畫
6. 鉛筆與釘子
7. 莫須有與想當然
8. 數學與電子
9. 作家與版稅－－塞萬提斯吃什麼，
10. 談忠藎－－今日朝廷須汲黯
11. 談典故－－雪夜燈前．作者答問
12. 河邊古屋
13. 駕快車與開飛機
14. 閒雲與亂想
15. 山色與花光
16. 香港觀感

〈進步與保守〉（1988年6月22日在中央大學畢業典禮上講）中說到：「如果中國文化是犯了滔天大罪的一個罪犯，也需要請一律師為之辯護，這是人類起碼的文明。萬一在辯論中發現了百分之九十九為非，這百分之一的是仍是有存在價值的。因為文明不是忽有一天從天上掉下來，也不是忽有一夕由地下挖出來的；而是多少年多少人的血汗浸漬出來的。誰也沒有權利把它一筆抹殺。（頁5-6）談到胡適之「常常提到，過激的主張也許可以由社會的惰性所中和」。「但胡適之先生沒有預料到的是中國社會的沒有重量。也就沒有惰性，是一群輕飄飄與一種一窩蜂的文化，讓魯迅這種颶風一吹，就大風起兮雲飛揚。」（頁8）

〈時空之海－－布萊克的一幅畫〉（1995年寫於台南）談布萊克（William Blake）那首〈無邪的占兆〉的中譯：

一粒細沙裏有一個世界；

一朵野花裏有一個天堂。

還有

一砂一世界；

一花一天國。

（原文：To see a world in a grain of sand;

And a heaven in a wild flower; 接著是

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour.）

〈鉛筆與釘子〉最令人動容，臨書而扼腕。前者是物理學家趙忠堯（楊振寧、李政道等的老師）由回國後在昆明的專業，做鉛筆；後者是工程材料學家陸志鴻在重慶時的專業，做釘子。生物工程學家馮元楨說：「國家眼看就要亡了，回國的學者們，不知道能貢獻什麼可以挽救危亡於萬一」「國家就要亡了，大家能做點什麼對國家才有貢獻，不僅是毫不遲疑的馬上捲起袖子去幹，而且是歡天喜地的鄭重其事的去做。趙忠堯的做鉛筆，陸志鴻的造釘子，只是成千上萬的這類故事之一二罷了。」「馮元楨非常平靜的說。我卻不能像馮教授那樣平靜，我只覺得眼睛越來越模糊。」（頁41）我也慢慢地失去視覺了......

〈莫須有與想當然〉。面對如何對待學生疑似抄襲，陳之藩的一位同事說：「如果你不出你學生是抄來的，你就不能說他是抄來的〔按：這是為人師表的水平不夠〕。你的學生並沒有義務去證明他不是抄來的，這是羅馬法的精神；文明與野蠻的分際，就在這麼細微的差別上。我覺得這是常識，你卻覺得這是個問題，好奇怪！」我也有過受屈的經驗，那個教授真不是一般的平庸。

〈談忠藎－－今日朝廷須汲黯〉。商務印書館的張菊生編《中華民族的人格》，列出公孫杵臼、程嬰、伍尚、子路、豫讓、聶政、荊軻、田橫、貫高諸人，「有的是為盡職，有的是為知恥；有的是為報恩，有的是為報仇；歸根結果，都做到殺身成仁。」張氏寄胡適一冊求序。胡適回覆道：「事蹟不限於殺身報仇，而要注重有風骨、有肩膀，挑得起國家重擔子的人物，故選荊軻不如選張良，選張良不如選張釋之與汲黯。」陳氏列出胡氏所選代表「中華民族的人格」的人物：漢：張釋之、汲黯；後漢：光武皇帝、鄧禹、馬援；三國：諸葛亮、曹操；晉：杜預、陶侃；唐：太宗、魏徵、杜甫、陸贄；宋：范仲淹、王安石、岳飛、文天祥；明：劉基、方孝孺、王守仁、張居正；清：顧炎武、顏元、曾國藩。（頁54-56）

〈河邊古屋〉引維根斯坦說：「語言如同都市的房，有些新的，有些舊的，永遠是新與舊夾雜在一起。」（頁71）

Recent readings XXVI

Ross Bassett's "MIT-Trained Swadeshis: MIT and Indian Nationalism, 1880-1947," OSIRIS, Vol. 24, 2009, pp. 212-230. Indian MIT-trained engineers, often from elite families, formed a technological elite. What about Chinese American(British? European?)-trained engineers? Top and second tiers?

Grace Yen Shen's "Taking to the Field: Geological Fieldwork and National Identity in Republican China," OSIRIS, Vol. 24, 2009, pp. 231-252. Ding Wenjiang 丁文江 (1887-1936) and Zhang Hongzhao 章鴻釗 (1877-1951)

Mark R. Hayllar's "Who owns culture and heritage? Observations on Hong Kong's experience," International Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, pp. 24-40. so-called public-private partnerships often involve just government-private interactions, with government failing in any meaningful way to represent 'the public'

Stephanie Po-yin Chung, "Chinese Tong as British Trust: Institutional Collisions and Legal Disputes in Urban Hong Kong, 1860s-1980s," Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1409-1432.

Fredrik Thomasson, "Justifying and Criticizing the Removals of Antiquities in Ottoman Lands: Tracking the Sigeion Inscription," International Journal of Cultural Property, Vol. 17, 2010, pp. 493-517.

Feng Yi, "Shop signs and visual culture in Republican Beijing," European Journal of East Asian Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, Jul 2007, pp. 103-28.

Mohd Hazim Shah, "Historicising Rationality: The Transmission of Rationality and Science to the Malay States under British Rule," Asian Journal of Social Science, Volume 35, Number 2, 2007 , pp. 216-241

Stephen Baker, The Numerati (London : Jonathan Cape, 2008). how our behaviour are turning into behavioural data? how possible it is to model a pool of vast information across disciplines into a click or two?

Stephan Fairs, Forecast: the consequences of climate change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley （New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2008. Chinese translation: 《大遷移：暖化如何影響你我的未來》，傅季強譯，台北：天下雜誌，2009）。thought-provoking.

Mark Lynas, Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet （London : Fourth Estate, 2007. Chinese translation：《改變世界的6℃》，譚家瑜譯，台北：天下雜誌, 2010）。engaging and contentious.

Wayne Lotherington, How creative people connect: or are they just dotty? （Singapore: TimeEdge Publishing, 2007. Chinese translation: 《創意沒什麼大不了》，劉盈君譯，台北：天下雜誌，2008）。 quite inspiring.

黃霑

抬頭望向書架的最頂層，放在《紅樓夢》（多年前從爺爺的書架上帶來）旁的書有張愛玲的《流言》、《第一爐香》和《傾城之戀》，沈從文的《邊城》，徐志摩的《巴黎的鱗爪》和《再別康橋》，聞一多的《死水》，郁達夫的《沉淪》，老舍的《駱駝祥子》，朱自清的《槳聲燈影》，還有黃霑的《不文集》，大抵上都是十多年來買下的。

當中，除了張愛玲外，我幾乎沒有再次和任何一個作者說過話，只有一個例外，是黃霑。最近從圖書館借來黃霑的另一本專欄書：《未夠不文集》，讀來十分過癮。摘錄下來，共諸同好，也讓自己多過點癮：

生平最討厭八婆。八婆平日不會甚麼，只會搬弄是非，但一旦有人有事，就忽然的變成專家，表演機會不可失；時為婚姻顧問，時為殯儀專家，卻是知識少，意見多，唯恐世界不亂。（〈該死八婆〉、〈想摑八婆〉，頁25-6）By definition, 八婆就是過街老鼠，人人得而誅之。

蝦毛自白。我們，游得再好，也不過是一滴污水裏的蝌蚪而已。在水氹裏稱雄，沒有用。汪洋大海做巨鯨，那才是真行。永遠不會因為是淺水中的蝦毛就以為自己是巨龍。（〈蝦毛自白〉，頁32）引以為戒。

罵人心得。罵人在乎對象、方法、時機，缺一不可。對象有級數之分，不夠的，徒費氣力；宜略低一級，高級的最好，不過可遇不可求。方法應該小題大做，題目做不起來的，不罵為佳。竅門在時機，場面熱鬧，喧聲震天，要忍一忍，等待時候才破口大罵，否則喊破喉嚨，嘥聲壞氣。（〈罵人心得〉，頁34）要學要學。

一味關住茅坑門自我欣賞，必是死症。（〈死症〉，頁39）引以為戒。

發財而不立品，真是罪無可恕。有錢人而不立品的，絕對不少，對這些人，我非常鄙視。（〈看不起自己〉，頁40）我城極多。

不看港聞多日，發覺好處甚多。耳根出奇的清靜，大有眾生攘攘，我獨優遊之概。有了片刻安寧，不必心煩氣躁，惶惶然不可終日。（〈且學鴕鳥〉，頁44）十分同意。

窮賊已經可怕，富賊比窮賊更可怕萬倍。......現在香港也有一群伺機而動的富賊。他們的面孔，仁厚忠誠；他們的內心，黑漆一團。他們懂得利用法律，來偷、來搶、來劫掠。他們懂得利用機會來欺騙，來出老千。這幫富賊，我們要慎加防範，因為他們正在我們周圍，我們稍一疏忽，就會被他們所乘。我們心須萬眾一心，保護我們自己的安全和財富的安全，嚴陣防範香港的富賊。（〈慎防富賊〉，頁108）三十年來，富賊仍然活躍。

香港社會，最近有種相當明顯的趨劫－－有群中上層階級的人在「標尾會」。這群中上層階級，多數是專業人士，有律師、有醫生、有建築師，都是社會上比較幸運的人。這些人，一向生活活在一般水準之上，而在這不安的氣氛裏，他們的表現，在一般水平之下。平時權利享受到盡，急時義務卻絕無打算承擔，真叫人齒冷。......臨危卸責，已經要不得。臨危而趁火打劫，與人渣無異。......這些人想「標尾會」，只是為了想遠走高飛。......在走之前，用盡千方百計，掩著良心去搶掠錢財，來作自己川資，卻實在要不。而此類人，此時此地，為數不少，想起來，令人不寒而慄。（〈無異人渣〉，頁109）人渣處處有。

你的價值，其實只由你未做的事來釐定，完成了的事，一旦完成，實在就成過去。（〈只許前看〉，頁192）放眼將來。

又再讀大前研一

你真的甘於成為「低IQ社會」中的一員嗎？

國外演講費（交通、住宿等另計）高達五萬美元（！）的大前研一如是問。看過《M型社會：中產階級消失的危機與商機》、《再起動：職場絶對生存手冊》等，這次讀《低IQ時代》（臺北：商周出版，2009；劉錦秀譯）。

全書分成十章，按次為：「低IQ社會」的出現，政府製造的不景氣根源就是「智慧衰退」，全體成為經濟白癡（即使零利率也把錢存銀行的國民），政局和「集體智慧」（在「○x」標識中漂流的國民），網路社會和大腦（網路的不良影響論），沒有欲望的年輕人和學力低下，提升「集體IQ」的教育改革，在「低IQ社會」中誰會得到好處？（官僚機構、外國投資客、投資基金），向勝利組學習（如美國、韓國、德國、歐盟、中國等），及21世紀的教養（地球公民責任）。

「低IQ社會」幾乎是大前對當下日本社會的斷語。大前問：

電視之所以會有那麼多「搞笑」、「猜謎」的節目，是不是因為觀眾的程度變低了？

就因為「大家都說好感動」這個理由，衝進電影院看話題電影，然後對人云亦云的鏡頭也覺得感動就心滿意足的人是不是很蠢？

不念書，只想靠腦力激盪鍛鍊大腦的人是不是很笨？

只閱讀內容簡單的書，是因為日本人的解讀能力倒退了嗎？

在「寬欲教育」和「少子化大學全入時代」的影響下，我們大學生真的變愚蠢了嗎？

大前認為：「坦白說，現在的日本人是白癡」（頁310）；「日本人沒道理、沒原則、沒理念」（頁312）。大前眼中的日本是全世界「集體IQ」最低的國家，是「低IQ社會」，「從小孩到大人都不喜歡動腦」，「充斥『宛如呆瓜的現象』」。我立刻想到，還應該去日本旅行嗎？但是，九級地震後的日本人的秩序井然和守望相助，卻是有目共睹。IQ高，EQ更高。

「的確人人都不喜歡思考。但是『不思考』的人，並不表示就沒有看法。事實上，他們都是有『意見』的。」（頁46）情緒不是意見，卻又主導輿論。「當有一個主流意見浮上檯面的時候，大家非但不去斟酌其中的涵意，還一起醞釀詭譎的氣氛拱出反對的意見。。。最糟糕的是，大家都捨棄意見，而把應該歸類為國民感情的情緒反應當成了輿論，甚至連政治家的一舉一動都明顯是在迎合這些輿論。」（頁49）

日本的經營者厭惡向亞洲學習，沒有上得了國際檯面的經濟人，能夠在國際會議露臉的日本人屈指可數。（頁68-72）大前是鳳毛麟角。

大多數的國民都不用大腦，只知道和媒體一起瞎起哄，嚷著要政府「想辦法」之後，即不斷重複做出把一切都交給上面處理的選擇。（頁92）

現在的日本還有一股「無法了解就攻擊！」的風潮，甚至連媒體都為這種風潮喝采心動。（頁259）

一些成績不佳的新聞記者，就直接在網路BBS上尋找題材。只要一發現有人的發言和某企業的問題事件有關，就會去盯這家企業，然後誇大其辭加以報導。（頁93）香港不會比日本好。

從事大眾傳播媒體事業的人，他們自覺的速度都非常緩慢，因為他們既沒有時間進修，也沒有求知熱情。每天只是若無其事地在報紙上解說資訊。......其實他們的工作就只是在為垃圾加工。（頁213-4）報紙、電視都已經失去了媒體本來該具備的功能了。但是幾乎所有的媒體人直到現在，都還是抱著狂妄自大的態度，認為「我們就是有本事製造輿論」、「我們就是有能力煽動大眾」。（頁214）

大前強調「頭腦就是武器」。這比起說「知識就是力量」有說服力得多。「不要害怕和別人不一樣。一定要牢牢記住，只有捨棄無差別意識，才能夠不被淘汰繼續活下去。」

大前引述自己在一九九九年出版的《一人獨勝經濟學：放棄選擇的日本人》：「自己沒有判斷的基準，只做逢迎大眾的選擇。在《一人獨勝經濟學》的背面，我們看到獨勝者確認大家的需求之後，再將火力集中在一點之上的行為舉止。這是日本人非常危險的國民性。」（頁36）

大前指出「現代年輕人論」（即是所謂一代不如一代的論調）的根本：大部分還是針對沒有欲望、沒有精神的年輕人抒發自己不滿的情緒。......其根本卻是來自大人們內心的焦急。......但是製造出這種年輕人的，卻是包括我在內的我們這些大人。（頁240）

成長於1980年代後半的世代是有小小的快樂就滿足的「少年JUMP世代」。故事的格局非常小；而主角所獲得的勝利，也不是一種社會性的勝利，充其量只是在身邊的狹小世界中所獲得的一種快樂。......這種世界觀「非常內向」......《少年JUMP》製造了大量只想擁有小小快樂的人。（頁252-3）緊接著是「電玩世代」和「手機世代」。

現在年輕人和比自己年長的「前輩」之間的關係，其實已經進入下剋上，不分長幼的時代了。（頁255-6）

最後，大前反覆強調年輕人必需具備的謀生能力，指的是三種神器：英語能力、金融素養和IT知識，再加上領導力。學生在大學時代就必須把三種神器磨得閃閃發光。（頁302-4）

又，作家石渡嶺司引述在大學課堂上，一名學生問；「教授，報告上的答案，網路上找不到......」（《最高学府はバカだらけ : 全入時代の大学「崖っぷち」事情》（東京：光文社，2007。劉錦秀譯作《最高學府笨蛋一籮筐》））

讀陳之藩一

一、《在春風裡》（台北：遠東圖書，1990）。

從圖書館借來的是1990年遠東圖書出版的版本。書前附陳之藩序《陳之藩散文集》。《陳之藩散文集》含陳氏散文集三種：《旅美小簡》，寫於剛到費城時；《在春風裏》，寫於剛到曼城時；《劍河倒影》，寫於剛到劍橋時。

「有位臺灣大學的同學搜集了六種《劍河倒影》的盜印版給我看，我看著紅紅綠綠大小不一的各種盜版苦笑了半天。」（序（寫於1973），頁1。斯文盛哉！）

「我在學生們的影子裏，看到我的過去，在家長們的叮嚀中，看到我的未來。在時間的長流中，往日的記憶與來日的夢想，似乎同時呈現在這校圃的空間裏。」（〈幾度夕陽紅〉（寫於1958年6月1日），頁9）

「一個時代，總應該有個把言行高潔的志士，如果沒有，應該有個把叱吒風雲的英雄，再沒有，也應該有個把豪邁不羈的好漢，如果連這類屠狗的人全找不到，這個時代就太可憐了。」（〈願天早生聖人〉（寫於1961年8月19日），頁18）

「我把這本書［勞倫斯的《查特萊夫人的情人》］放在案頭已兩年了。它也有其類別。我把它併入老子的《道德經》，華茲華斯詩集，盧梭的《懺悔錄》，普希金的《奧湼金》與陶淵明的集子。這固然是一種不倫不類的組合。尤其在教會學校教書，修士同事們看見我的書架上有這麼一本書，難免不皺皺眉，又搖搖頭的走開。......［學生問為何把《查特萊夫人的情人》與華茲華斯詩集放在一些。陳之藩答道：］這一堆書，都是我的偏好。它們是同類。這個類可以叫做『憤怒的反抗與微弱的呻吟』。」（〈週末〉（寫於1962年1月5日），頁36）

陳氏兒時在街頭賣對了，作「晨昏三叩首，早晚一爐香。」（〈春聯－－祝適之先生七十生日〉（寫於1961年聖誕節），頁43）在後方上學時，在宿舍貼上：「萬里山河唐土地，千年魂魄晉英雄。」（頁44）

「在小時候，每當冬夜，我們一大家人圍著個大圓桌吃飯。我總是坐在祖母身旁。祖母總是摸著我的頭說：『老天爺賞我們家飽飯吃，記住，飯碗裏一粒米都不許剩，要是糟蹋糧食，老天爺就不給咱們飯了。（頁46-7。頗似何柄棣在自傳《讀史閱世》中記述他小時候的經歷）......幾年來自己在奔波，掙了幾碗飯吃，作了一些研究，寫了幾篇學術文章，真正作了點事以後，才有了一種新的覺悟；即是無論什麼事，得之於人者太多，出之於己者太少，因為需要感謝的人太多了，就感謝天罷。（頁48）......創業的人，都會自然而然的想到上天，而敗家的人卻無時不想到自己。（頁49）......我們回頭想一想，五六十年來的中國比我七八歲時的思想能強幾何！史家如果寫這五六十年來的我國歷史時，一定命名為狂妄而幼稚，無法與無天的時代。（頁49）......沒有做任何真正的事，沒有建任何真正的功，自然而然不會有謝天感覺。（頁50）」（〈謝天〉寫於1961年除夕），頁46-50）

談胡適與丁文江的交誼：「［他們］交誼到了一種境界，白話文就不中用了。他們避暑十日暢談古今，相別時的依依不捨，胡丁兩先生並沒有作白話詩，而是抄了元白的舊詩並套作了元白的絕句。（頁61）......我想自丁先生死後，胡先生所看得起的人沒有什麼了。他變成一個熱鬧中最寂寞的人。......友朋之情，過於手足；短歌之哀，甚於痛哭。」（〈第二信－－紀念適之先生之二〉（寫於1962年3月2日適之先生大殮日），頁63）

「一個性情最柔的詩人，受了嚴酷的考證訓練，把一個最配作詩人的胡先生給扼殺了。這是胡先生的悲劇。至少是我以為是個悲劇。沒有詩人的國家是沒有星光的夜。沒有星光的夜，只是沒有夢的黑暗而已。」（〈第三信－－紀念適之先生之三〉（寫於1962年3月3日），頁72）

「不客氣說，這幾十年的中國的大學教育有個大毛病，就是太重視留學生，太不注意自己所培養的人才。似乎是未出過國的，都是飯桶；更似乎是凡出過國的都是能臣。這已不是留學生不留學生的問題，這實在是八股文的復活。正是《儒林外史》上所說的，『沒有功名哪個給你宮兒做。』留學生的確能開眼界，長知識的。可是並不是唯一的標準，不能出國而能努力的也得給他們一些機會，至少也得給他們一些希望。（頁94）......人才全給活生生的壓死了。（頁95）......從政府到學校，天天在嚷沒有人才，而人才就在面前。並不是出了國才是人才，也不是出了國才會教書，才會作研究。不是沒有人才，是沒有識人才的眼睛，不是沒有良馬，而一些根本未見過馬的人自欺為伯樂而已」（〈第五信－－紀念適之先生之七〉（寫於1962年3月9日），頁95-6）

「適之先生，天上好玩嗎？希望您在那兒多演講，多解釋解釋，讓老天爺保佑我們這個可憐的國家，我們這群茫然的孤兒。大家雖然有些過錯甚至罪惡，但心眼兒都還挺好的。大家也決心日行一善，每人先學您一德，希望您保佑我們。」（〈寄－－紀念適之先生之八〉（寫於1962年3月11日），頁109）

《女學報》

讀Yong Z. Volz的"Going public through writing: women journalists and gendered journalistic space in China, 1890s-1920s" (Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 469-489)，引發對於光緒二十四年六月上旬（1898年6月24日）創刊於上海的《女學報》（Chinese Girl's Progress）的興趣。

無錫市圖書館藏《女學報》一至八期。第一期封面列出主筆名單，計有十八人（第八期所見有二十人）：

晉安薛紹徽女史、金匱裘梅侣女史、番禺潘道芳女史、明州沈和卿女史、上虞蔣畹芳女史、武進劉可青諸女史、暨丁素清女史、皖江章畹香女史、京兆龔慧蘋女史、江右文靜芳女史、南海康文僩女史、貴筑李端惠女史、臨桂廖元華女史、邗江睢念劬（第一期封面缺「念劬」二字？）女史、梁溪沈靜英女史、梁溪沈翠英女史、古吳朱蒔蘭女史、上海潘仰蘭女史

告白曰：

......函寄上海西門外文元坊本報館查收。......

.一中國女學書，善本甚少。本館同人購譯東西洋女學書外，又編纂白話淺文諸書，以餉海內。茲以報尾擬續附女學書一頁。先將潘仰蘭所演，劉可青所繪《中外古今列女傳》出，以作巾幗師範之資。

......

Chinese men more romantic

Are Chinese men more romantic than Chinese women and, in general, the Chinese more idealistic than the Americans?

Based on two empirical investigation in American and Chinese college/university students, a study finds that in the North American sample (n=693), men, as compared to women, were more willing to marry without love, were more ludic and agapic but less erotic and pragmatic in their love styles, and were less likely to view emotional satisfaction as important to the maintenance of marriage. Whereas the Chinese sample (n=735) shows that Chinese men were more romantic and storgic than Chinese women, but less likely to believe in destiny or fate concerning love. Chinese men were also more likely than Chinese women to view physical pleasure as important for maintaining marriage. In general, the Chinese had both a more idealistic and a more practical approach to love than the Americans.

Source: Susan Sprecher and Maura Toro-Morn's "A Study of Men and Women from Different Sides of Earth to Determine if Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus in their Beliefs about Love and Romantic Relationships," Sex Roles, Vol. 46, No. 5/6, Mar 2002, pp. 131-47.

Other readings at the same time:

Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T. Regan's "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?" Journal of Economic Perspective, Vol. 7, No. 2, Spring 1993, pp. 159-71. exposure to the self-interest model, which is commonly used in economics, does in fact encourage self-interested behaviour.

David Stack's "The Death of John Stuart Mill," The Historical Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2011, pp. 167-90. Stack surveys the fiercely contested posthumous assessments of JSM in the newspaper and periodical press, in the months following his death in May 1873, and elicits the broader intellectual context.

intelligent design

let us face it: not being able to answer a question is no excuse for giving an answer that is false. I think that contemporary biology supports the claim that intelligent design is a false answer (Emile Zuckerkandl's "Intelligent design and biological complexity," Gene, Vol. 385, 2006, p. 4)

Being urged to keep an open mind about whether there has or has not been biological evolution is a comical invitation. It is equivalent to being urged to keep an open mind about whether the earth is flat or round, to consider that matter critically. (p. 3)

in the case of the phenomenon of evolution intelligent design not be presented as a scientific alternative, because it isn't. Intelligent design is a consideration extraneous to science that cannot affect science in the slightest. The effects of the results of science on religion are in some ways considerable, if slow in making their way; the effects of religion on the results of science are nil and can only be nil. (p. 3)

The observations in question definitely do not suggest that living systems have been built up thanks to the insights and decisions of a master engineer. Rather, the observations testify to a vast amount of continuous tinkering by trial and error with macromolecular interactions. The results of this tinkering are often retained when they can be integrated into the organism's functional whole. But why would God tinker? Doesn't He know in advance the biological pathways that work? Isn't a tinkering God one who loudly says "I am not"? And why would He say so if He existed? (p. 10)

Source: Emile Zuckerkandl's "Intelligent design and biological complexity," Gene, Vol. 385, 2006, pp. 2-18.

三民主義和中華民國到底誰個的本事大？

透過探索一個時代變遷邊緣之微觀社會情境，可以體察人們的行為如何一方面受種種社會規範與結構的約制，一方面又顯現個人的選擇與創造力。

中研院在1929及1933年分別進行川西及湘西邊疆民族考察。考察員訪問一名喇嘛，報告寫道：「楊喇嘛既知道孫中山，並且聽說過有蔣介石，但不知有南京也。更可惜的是他問我們道：『三民主義和中華民國到底誰個的本事大？』」

資料來源：王明珂：〈國族邊緣、邊界與變遷－－兩個近代中國邊疆民族考察的例子〉，《新史學》，第21卷第3期（2010年9月），頁1-54。（上文來自頁19-20，轉引自黎光明、王元輝，《川西民俗調查記錄1929》，頁106。）

tropical medicine

Tropical medicine is the branch of modern medicine that deals with endemic diseases widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, such as malaria. The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (1898) and the London School of Tropical Medicine (1899) in Britain are two eminent examples dedicated to fighting against tropical disease. I recently read an article related to this: G. C. Cook's "Charles Wiberforce Daniels, FRCP (1862-1927): underrated pioneer of tropical medicine," Acta Tropica, Vol. 81, 2002, pp. 237-250.

The story begins from Dr. Patrick Manson, who founded the London School of Tropical Medicine in 1899, to Charles Wiberforce Daniels, who was one of the earliest pioneers of tropical medicine. Daniels became Director of the new Institute of Medical Research in the Federated Malay States from 1903 to 1905 during which he released Observations on the disease of British Malaya (Studies from Institute for Medical Research, Federated Malay States, No. 3, Part 1 & 2, pp 66) and The Outbreaks of rinderpest in Selangor, 1903 & 1904 (Studies from Institute for Medical Research, Federated Malay States, No. 3, Part 4, pp. 19), which were published by Kelly and Walsh in Singapore in 1904. (K & W, which is my focus, also published Hamilton Wright's Malarial fever of British Malaya (Studies from Institute for Medical Research, Federated Malay States, No. 1, Vol. 1, pp 98) in 1901)

Not for profit?

what do we choose between an education for profit-making and an education for a more inclusive type of citizenship?

A few weeks ago William C. Kirby, T. M. Chang Professor of China Studies and Director of Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard, came to Hong Kong to give a public lectures titled The Chinese Century? Consumption, Production, and Education for China's New Middle Class, as one of the three public lectures on history and business in China 2010-2011 at the Central Library (others could be found here). At the end of the lecture, Kirby emphasized the importance of liberal arts and its tradition at Harvard, which I found very inspiring as I was reading a relevant book on the subject. I was quite inclined to talk to him about this after the lecture but being home too late was not an wise option (it was about 8.30pm).

The book is Martha C. Nussbaum's Not for profit: why democracy needs the humanities (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

Nussbaum quoted Harvard's president Drew Faust: "Higher learning can offer individuals and societies a depth and breadth of vision absent from the inevitably myopic present. Human beings need meaning, understanding, and perspective as well as jobs. The question should not be whether we can afford to believe in such purposes in these times, but whether we can afford not to." (p. 124. originally from "The University's Crisis of Purpose," New York Times Review, September 6, 2009, p. 19)

This thought-provoking book is divided into seven chapters: 1. The Silent Crisis; 2. Education for Profit, Education for Democracy; 3. Educating Citizens: The Moral (and Anti-Moral) Emotions; 4: Socratic Pedagogy: The Importance of Argument; 5. Citizens of the World; 6. Cultivating Imagination: Literature and the Arts; and 7. Democratic Education on the Ropes.

In 2006, a prestigious American university was to hold a symposium celebrating a major anniversary, a centerpiece of which was to discuss the future of liberal education. The president, however, changed his mind because he thought a symposium on liberal education would not 'make a splash,' he changed the focus to the latest technological achievements and their roles in generating profits for business and industry. (p. 5)

Nuassbaum reminds us, as the author of the foreword, Ruth O'Brien, Professor at the Graduate Center in Political Science and American Studies at CUNY, said "great educators and nation-builders understood how the arts and humanities teach children the critical thinking that is necessary for independent action and for intelligent resistance to the power of blind tradition and authority. Students of art and literature also learn to imagine the situations of others, a capacity that is essential for a successful democracy, a necessary cultivation of our 'inner eyes.'" (p. ix) "A democracy filled with citizens who lack empathy will inevitably breed more types of marginalization and stigmatization, thus exacerbating rather than solving its problems." (p. x) "Neglect and scorn for the arts and humanities", Nussbaum warns, "puts the quality of all our lives, and the health of our democracies, at risk." (p. xi)

Modern democracy requires a strong economy and economy and a flourishing business culture. This economic interest requires us to draw on the humanities and arts to promote a climate of responsible and watchful stewardship and a culture of creative innovation. (p. 10)

We are facing a worldwide crisis in education, which sees economic growth as the primary goal of education. Nations all over the world is "producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person's sufferings and achievements." (p. 2)

"educator for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts. They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtuseness is necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality. It is easier to treat people as objects to be manipulated if you have never learned any other way to see them." "Art is a great enemy of that obtuseness, and artists...are not the reliable servants of any ideology, even a basically good one - they always ask the imagination to move beyond its usual confines, to see the world in new ways." (p. 24-5)

"if we have not learned to see both self and other in that way, imagining in one another inner faculties of thought and emotion, democracy is bound to fail, because democracy is built upon respect and concern, and these in turn are built upon the ability to see other people as human beings, not simply objects." (p. 6)

"All modern democracies," Nuassbaum says, "are societies in which the meaning and ultimate goals of human life are topics of reasonable disagreement among citizens who hold many different religious and secular views, and these citizens will naturally differ about how far various types of humanistic education serve their own particular goals." (p. 9)

"abilities...are at risk of getting lost in the competitive flurry, abilities crucial to the health of any democracy internally, and to the creation of a decent world culture capable of constructively addressing the world's most pressing problems. These abilities are associated with the humanities and the arts: the ability to think critically; the ability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a 'citizen of the world'; and, finally, the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicament of another person." (p. 7)

"the ability to imagine the experience of another - a capacity almost all human beings possess in some form -," Nuassbaum argues, "needs to be greatly enhanced and refined if we are to have any hope of sustaining decent institutions across the many divisions that any modern society contains." (p. 10)

the spirit of the humanities are "searching critical though, daring imagination, empathetic understanding of human experiences o many different kinds, and understanding of the complexity of the world we live in." (p. 7)

Science "is a friend of the humanities rather than their enemy." (p. 8) So are technology, engineering, business, and social sciences.

what abilities will it need to produce "humane, people-sensitive democracy dedicated to promoting opportunities for 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in its citizens?

- The ability to think well about political issues affecting the nation, to examine, reflect, argue, and debate, deferring to neither tradition nor authority.

- The ability to recognize ellow citizens as people with equal rights, even though they may be different in race, religion, gender, and sexuality: to look at them with respect, as ends, not just as tools to be manipulated for one's own profit.

- The ability to have concern for the lives of others, to grasp what policies of many types mean for the opportunities and experiences of one's fellow citizens, of many types, and for people outside one's own nation.

- The ability to imagine well a variety of complex issues affecting the story of a human life as it unfolds: to think about childhood, adolescence, family relationships, illness, death, and much more in a way informed by an understanding of a wide range of human stories, not just by aggregate data.

- The ability to judge political leaders critically, but with an informed and realistic sense of the possibilities available to them.

- The ability to think about the good of the nation as a whole, not just that of one's own local group.

- The ability to see one's own nation, in turn, as a part of a complicated world order in which issues of many kinds require intelligent transnational deliberation for their resolution. (p. 25-6)

what schools can and should do to produce citizens in and for a healthy democracy?

- Develop students' capacity to see the world from the viewpoint of other people, particularly those whom their society tends to portray as lesser, as "mere objects".

- Teach attitudes toward human weakness and helplessness that suggest that weakness is not shameful and the need for others not unmanly; teach children not to be ashamed of need an incompleteness but to see these as occasions for cooperation and reciprocity.

- Develop the capacity for genuine concern for others, both near and distant.

- Undermine the tendency to shrink from minorities of various kinds in disgust, thinking of them as "lower" and "contaminating".

- Teach real and true things about other people (racial, religious, and sexual minorities; people with disabilities), so as to counter stereotypes and the disgust that often goes with them.

- Promote accountability by treating each child as a responsible agent.

- Vigorously promote critical thinking, the skill and courage it requires to raise a dissenting voice. (p. 45-6)

又讀陶傑

最出色的論點是「後底乸縱仔」，送他／她一程。警語。繼之有：

「〔香港〕中學不教中國歷史，也不教中國詩詞，也好。讓愚蠢成為主流，通街是文盲o靚模，面對這樣的『市場』，我們這些稍識幾個字的，正好冷眼旁觀，劃著火迆，炶一口煙，吐了出來，想想如何從中營利。」（〈熱鬧看風雲〉，頁191）

「一個錯別字流行的社會，亦以行政管理的科學邏輯來分析：這個地方，思想必定粗糙，頭腦一定簡單，而且喜歡互相政擊，一個小六程度的女明星出書錯別字多，即刻有一群中一程度的學者爭相挺身矯正，以示自己高人一等－－這種社會，證明財富分配極度不公平，有許多人以懷才不遇自居，有很深的挫敗感，心理不平衡。」（〈熱鬧看風雲〉，頁192）

出自陶傑：《這個荒謬的快樂年代：陶傑散文精選》（香港：皇冠出版社，2010）。