Xin 的个人资料Xin照片日志列表 工具 帮助

日志


5月17日

一点小感触:又谈中西文化


   
    今天突然觉着自己搞清楚了一个问题,就是Kitayama他们著名的interdependent self理论,翻译到中国我觉着应该是“人伦”“人情”自我,而不是什么“互倚”自我。

    这个互倚的概念我觉着比较日本化。说浅了,就是日本人在生活情境中对人际关系极其敏感;说深了,就是日本人自己对自己的看法基本是和他人比较的结果,自己比别人强或者自己比别人弱。坦率地说,这种心态是缺乏安全感和根的。当然中国人中也会有人是这样的互倚型自我,但感觉他们不是主流,至少不是传统中国文化里所描绘的人格理想,也不符合日渐复兴的“Great China”心态,所以用interdependent,相对于independent来概括中国人的自我观念我觉着少了点什么。哪怕就说自己身边的中国人吧,我觉着个个都很独立很有主见啊,我觉着个个都有不依赖他人的骄傲和尊严啊。其实,说西方人更独立而中国人更互相依赖挺诡异的,就像是说西方人更有原则咱们更失魂落魄似的。在我看来,任何民族的人都是人,是人就有人理解世界的方式和管理世界的办法和理由,是人就不得不“依赖”这些理解,办法和理由而活,无他,更没有什么纯粹的独立和自主(想了半天,自由就是既没社会又没文化的人吧,婴儿?疯子?)。所以呢,西方文化与中国文化的差异不在于你依赖我独立,或者我高尚你自私,而在于咱们各自独立的标准是什么,高尚的准则又是什么。这才是自我的核心内容,或许也是文化的核心内容。因此我不喜欢说西方人是独立自我而中国人是互倚自我。相反,我们可以说西方人自我的演绎舞台主要是每个人自己,照顾好自己的情绪,发展好自己的个性,实现自己的目标。而中国人演绎生命的舞台是人伦关系(包括家庭关系等等),我们理想的个性是符合人伦标准的,我们健康的情感是符合“人”情事理的,值得骄傲的人生总是与别人的需要联系在一起的。更有,西方的公共和私人话语青睐个体,学者们也会饶有兴致地探索个体内在世界的规律,比如精神的能量和情感的秩序。他们普通人的道德观念,情绪表达,自我认识和对他人与 社会的理解,也都是建立在这样一个前提下。而中国人就不同了,世间的道理,行为的准则,人生的喜怒苦乐,多少都植根与人与人的关系中,就连本该比较抽象的“集体”也常常中国化的被赋予了类人伦关系,比如人与国“家”,人与同“胞”,我们想不出在另一种文化中“自私”也可以“自私”的堂堂正正,甚至“自私”出些门道来呢,呵呵。所以说呢,西方人和中国人根本的差异在于对人性的不同理解,对真善美的不同假设,以及大家珍视的人生舞台不同,而不是谁比谁人格独立,或者谁有自我谁没有没自我。(不过,文化在演义,沟通在加强,差异越来越相对化了,大体的差异也不能预测个别的情况,将来谁知道呢。)

    打个比方,就好像有两个人,一个人一辈子只见过白色并深深地崇拜白色,而另一个人一生只见过黑色并深深地仰慕黑色。有一天他俩遇上了。于是白人就问黑人,你喜欢万岁万岁万万岁的白色吗。黑人不明就里更不知道如何回答。于是白人宣布,世界上有两种人,一种人是对万岁万岁万万岁白色充满激情与期待的白人,另一种是对万岁万岁万万岁白色心如死灰并蒙昧无知的非白人。所以本来活着好好的黑人,一下子被定义为对万岁万岁万万岁白色懵懂无知的非白人,在他们还没有完全搞清楚这个白色从哪里冒出来,是个什么东西的情况下。而白人依然对这个世界上的另一种颜色黑色全然不晓得也不屑去知晓。

   


5月15日

discourse, does it really matter and how?

En, keep on writing in English this time.

Living in another cultural environment, it is more likely for me to distance myself from the Chinese culture I was born into and have spent most of my life in and thus get so familiar with. The comparative lens renders special opportunity, which I cannot miss, to perceive and explicate the uniqueness but not ubiquitous ness of Chinese interpretation of lives and experiences, personal or social, which is so intellectually fascinating to me.

But the Chinese interpretation is not one, but many. There are intellectuals in and outside the land of China who have the opportunities and capabilities to live beyond the time and space which the majority of their Chinese fellows are located and embedded with. Though their subjectivities make sense to me personally and artistically inspiring sometimes, nonetheless they are not of my academic concern for the most part. On the contrary, I want my profession to be a social stage for me to participate into my social world, shared by others and in doing my work I could gain self-worth and the sense of achievement and personal pride that are understandable to the majority of others, including my family, at the same time. I want an engaged life, rather than a dislocated or marginalized self and inner construction.

That is part of the reason why I have little interest in literature studies, and other public discourses analysis. I used to think that the public voice arena, though offers relatively accessible data which is good for researchers, is nevertheless more of study of the space of performance of those with intellectual or political power and somewhat blind to commoner’s lives and experiences, no matter how much they have assumed the scope of their impact to the society according to the somewhat narcissistically put “elite” logic which is alien to my personal value. So, I do not like paying attention to the ups and downs of short-term discourses. But, what happened last year in China makes me reflect about the actual importance of discourses in social life for the majority of Chinese who are less concerned about intellectual creativity but more concerned about live a life. It seems that many people do care about what are presented to them through media, and they not only employ discursive vocabulary to organize their own perceptions but also are emotionally aroused by them. For example, when something was reported in the public, many people talk about it in life and take real action on it, no matter it is natural calamities or human fighting. So even short-term discourses matter, to a certain degree, otherwise you cannot explain why people invest money, time, and some kind of psychic energy upon it. On the other hand, however, the problem is how much do they matter and in what way?

From a psychological perspective, I have to say it needs to be studied. We really know little about the exact mechanism between the external social discourses and the individual internal activities. It is possible that longing for security and dignity is universal or people everywhere in the world need an “object” relationship in which personal fantasies could be invested with psychical energy, though the kind of object is changing all the time and can only come into being with historical contingency. But I do not think mere cross-sectional correlation is sufficient to reach reliable conclusion about people’s psychological characteristics. Take a plain example, though many people talk about the earthquake today and some of them offered generous donations to the calamity district, I personally still question the degree of psychological impact of this social issue to those who have not personally experience it, and those whose family are far from being endangered by it. Therefore in order to explore the interaction between culture and psychology, I think a longitudinally conducted research and individual (person) level of analysis would be more useful to further what aspect of discourses or ideologies really penetrates psychology, in which way and under what circumstances. 


Lastly, I am not interested a somewhat lofty study of discourses, academically. But I am really happy that all of the significant others in my life are safe. And Good Luck to All~

So hungry...that is it today...go back home!

Next time I would like to write the problem I am truly curious and care about in my research.



5月10日

两种记录

    首先,omg,the exactly same 美国眼镜男 i met last Friday is sitting in front of me right now!

    Second of all, 看到有朋友在我的日志里面回复,心里窃窃地乐呢我,呵呵,本人身上最重的乡土味道,就是喜欢暖暖和和的感觉。

    Thirdly, 一个朋友在space里说决定只写life而不写living。让我想到这世上似乎确实有两种不同倾向的写作。

    一种更多关于“life”,在这种风格的记录中,那些能显性或隐性地实现人们心中某种深深的企慕或骄傲的记忆与想象,变得更值得挑选,编织,与经营。给别 人,也给自己。life式写作像是梦想剧场的演绎,写作的空间是一隅永葆曼妙的他处,写作的过程是精彩与美丽融化成自我生命的过程,多么暖暖和和,难怪几 个朋友都执著地维护着自己的主id形象,就像生活中人们也会执著地维护自己各种各样的形象,这些形象或许不在乎任何虚拟的公众,而更属于人们自己。

    另一种更多关于“living”,在这种风格的记录中,现在进行时是那么地出人意外,好的坏的美的丑的重要的琐碎的激动地无奈的。。。这么复杂新鲜材料的 让人如何地依照过去来挑选和编织呢?所以,人们只能再拜顿首,傻傻地无论欣喜或难过,平静或无所谓,澎湃或绝望,记下来的是当下,留在网络的Space 中,或埋在头顶的湛蓝里。这个记录看似有点无章无法混沌不清楚,不过实际做起来却是辛苦的。毕竟想要(尽量)赤裸裸直觉此刻此处可并不简单容易,我看至少 也得在惊人的好奇心和友善的人生境遇的协助下才可能实现吧。当然这要除去那些生性淳真,经历流畅,并幸运地躲过强大意识或话语渗透的选民们。似乎是有这样 的人的。