Tiananmen Now Seems Distant to China’s Students

Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting. Huang Yuanxi and Zhang Jing contributed research.

 

BEIJING — On April 30, the cell phones of the 32,630 students at Peking University, a genteel institution widely regarded as one of China’s top universities, buzzed with a text message from the school administration. It warned students to “pay attention to your speech and behavior” on Youth Day because of a “particularly complex” situation.

 

Campaign posters for student elections at Peking University in Beijing. The university was a hotbed of political activity in 1989.

 

Today’s Chinese students seem uninterested in protest or ideology. “You know where the line is drawn,” one student said.

 

Few students had to puzzle over the meaning. Youth Day, on May 4, commemorates a 1919 student protest against foreign imperialism and China’s weakness in resisting it. Seventy years later, in 1989, students from Peking University were again massing in the center of Beijing, demanding democracy. The student movement shook the ruling Communist Party to its core and ended with a military crackdown and hundreds of deaths.

 

And if a student today proposed a pro-democracy protest?

 

“People would think he was insane,” said one Peking University history major in a recent interview. “You know where the line is drawn. You can think, maybe talk, and think about the events of 1989. You just cannot do something that will have any public influence. Everybody knows that.”

 

Most students also appear to accept it. For 20 years, China’s government has made it abundantly clear that students and professors should stick to the books and stay out of the streets. Students today describe 1989 as almost a historical blip, a moment too extreme and traumatic ever to repeat.

 

But whether democracy still inspires them is a more complex question.

 

Interviews with students and teachers at Peking University, as with experts on China here and abroad, draw a layered portrait of today’s students: disinclined to protest, but also lacking the economic grievances that helped ignite protests in 1989; proud of China’s achievements and flocking to the Communist Party, but seldom driven by ideology.

 

They are disturbed by government corruption and censorship and are eager to study in the West, especially the United States. And despite the government’s attempts to wipe the 1989 protests from Chinese history, some have learned what happened. All but one of eight Peking University students interviewed for this article, for instance, said they had managed to download an acclaimed — and banned — documentary on the Tiananmen protests and view it in their dorm rooms.

 

“There is a stereotypical view that students are not interested in democracy. I don’t buy it,” Cheng Li, research director of the China Center at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview. “At the very least, they have a mixed opinion of the Communist Party.”

 

Xia Yeliang, a Peking University professor, said many students supported democracy in theory but did not want to risk their futures to fight for it. Students joke that they will get involved once pro-democracy forces gather steam, he said. “A rather high percentage of students are not interested in politics,” he said. “They say, ‘We know this is a good thing, but what relation does it have to us?’ They think about their personal affairs, how to get a job, how to go abroad.”

 

Even the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, People’s Daily, laments a general lack of idealism on campus. “Many university students are clearly very utilitarian in their thinking,” People’s Forum, a magazine published by People’s Daily, complained this month after a conducting a student survey. “Everything is based on ‘whether or not it is useful to me,’ ” the magazine said.

 

In fact, today’s students have more to lose than did protesters 20 years ago. Then, university students believed that their futures were endangered by a soaring inflation rate of 28 percent, rampant government corruption and shrinking job prospects, according to a 2001 book on the Tiananmen movement by Dingxin Zhao, a University of Chicago sociology professor. Many had lost hope in the government’s economic reforms.

 

Today, even students who criticize Communist rule are gratified by China’s great strides. “Sometimes we don’t like the policies of our government,” said Wang Yongli, fourth-year physics major. “But on the other hand, nowadays we are proud of the country and the government because they have moved so many people to a better life.”

 

The Communist Party is careful to cultivate this image, while seeking to defuse longings for democracy by vowing to govern “democratically.”

 

Officials say they oppose Western-style multiparty democracy as wrong for China, but embrace the idea of consultation, public review and balloting under party rule. China will open up the political system, step by step, as the country becomes wealthier and more stable, officials promise.

 

Some China analysts suggest that student discontent could rise if the current economic crisis clouds their futures. China sends nine times as many students to institutions of higher education now as it did in 1989, and competition for good jobs is fierce. Nearly one in four graduates last year could not find work, Xinhua, the state-run news agency, reported.

But since 1989, Communist Party leaders have realized that they ignore youth at their peril. The government is now trying to ease job anxieties with training programs and incentives for graduates to work in rural areas. “If you are worried, then I am more worried than you,” Prime Minister Wen Jiabao told one student group in December.

The party has also ratcheted up recruitment and political education, making college students the party’s fastest-growing segment, said Susan L. Shirk, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. More than 8 percent of all students were party members in 2007, compared with less than 1 percent in 1989. At elite institutions like Peking University, percentages are much higher.

Some of those students echo the party’s line that Western-style democracy does not suit China. “China has a large population, and education has a long way to go,” said Song Chao, a Peking University ecology major. “Considering that, we need to put some regulations on people. The major task for China now is development.”

Others hope to nudge the party toward reform. “Of course, if we could become a democratic society, we would like that,” said another history major and party aspirant. “But this is not something you can achieve by radical means. What if there is chaos?”

But a majority of students seek party membership not as an ideological statement but rather as a means to a better job, the survey published by People’s Forum concluded. At Peking University, many students say they nap through the university’s much mocked, though mandatory, political thought classes. “Even the teachers know they are teaching rubbish,” one senior said.

Most students will make such statements only anonymously because government control of campus speech remains tight. Professors say some students are assigned to report to administrators if they hear teachers adopting antigovernment lines. Most students interviewed for this article did not want to be identified, saying their comments might be negatively noted in their files.

Five years ago, the university shut down a computer bulletin board — a vibrant hub of information for 300,000 users — after the central government’s education minister complained that it did not always reflect “the right view.” Students say they are careful about what they write on the new, restricted and monitored board because their identities can be traced.

Surveys show that four of five university students still rely on China’s heavily censored media for their news. But in a digital age when nearly 70,000 Chinese students are studying in the United States and roughly 163,000 foreign students study at Chinese universities, walls against information are porous.

One senior recalled an excruciating roundtable discussion with foreign journalists who visited Peking University in 2007 and asked about the government crackdown on student demonstrators in 1989. “They always ask about this June 4 incident, and we just keep silent,” she said. “It is not because we don’t want to talk. It is because we have no idea what exactly happened!

“I felt a little bit humiliated because we don’t know our own history,” she said. “So I went to the library and I read about June 4. Basically, everything was written by foreign journalists.”

The curbs on public debate can reduce even political controversies on campus to the status of rumors. Two Peking University professors were among the first to sign Charter 08, an online pro-democracy manifesto released in December and backed by many intellectuals.

After signing, Professor Xia, the economist, said he was forced to resign from positions at two research institutes. His fellow signer, He Weifang, a celebrated law professor, was transferred to an obscure college in China’s far west. Professor He’s exile was news overseas. But much like the coming anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown, it drew little notice from students.

One student defended the professor with an anonymous post on the campus’s computer bulletin board. “The day will come,” he wrote, “when Professor He can go where he wants.”

 

纽约州一直是民主党的天下,Ithaca更是自由开放的代表,大学生又是Obama的忠实群体,所以几乎很难听到支持McCain的声音,两边的争辩更是不可能了,一边倒的态势只会产生搞笑版的Palin.听不到来自另一方的辩驳,我也许会觉得有点遗憾,但也让我从民主党候选人竞选时起就相信Obama会一路走下去,结果是我的朋友们赌赢了.我留意到这样的数据:在Tompkins County(也就是在Ithaca注册投票的)支持Obama的人近70%,这足以说是压倒性优势了,纽约州对Obama的支持率是62%,而尽管Obama获得了2倍于McCain的有效选票,但全国支持率实际是53%,完全不像我所处的环境这样偏颇.

 

美国大学生们对于竞选总统的关注其实是很值得捉摸的.年轻人对于政治,社会的无所谓是非常普遍的,当下这个时代就不是一个革命的时代,很少有年轻人口口声声念叨这个国家会如何如何.之前我还在想为什么学校里的朋友很少主动谈及当下的经济危机,反倒是国内的朋友常问起我.但对于这次竞选,应该说学生群体的关注程度相当高.每次的总统候选人辩论,大家都会聚在一起看电视,学校里的民主党和共和党俱乐部也会每周组织讲座,投票当天还有专车去投票.Obama自然也以其年轻而试图抓住年轻人的心,Facebook上常见他的广告.回报是可想而知的:18-29岁的选民中66%投给了Obama.

 

而最令我意外的,是获知Obama当选的这个夜晚.在11点过后的几十分钟之内,大家尖叫着,奔跑着,从各自的宿舍汇集到Flagpole,在一起相互拥抱,合影,狂欢,高呼Obama的名字,高呼USA,高唱美国国歌.学生们的爱国激情是最单纯,最自然,也最冲动的. 后来的确有警察光顾,让我感到某种不安,但毕竟是在美国,大家也只是庆祝,没有任何意外冲突,相安无事.这样的场景恐怕人一生中都很难碰到,或者说这样的场景实在是久违了,只有在文革中的红卫兵,60年代西方的学生运动,6.4天安门广场的学生中找到过这样的身影,而那些历史片断都是我所质疑的.但这个夜晚,我确实身临其境,感受着他们的快乐,见证着这一历史性时刻.哪怕只是为了这一刻,我来到美国,来到这里读大学也是有意义的.若不是第二天有考试和演讲,我肯定会彻夜难眠地记录下我的感受.

 

当然,我从来就不是能够持续狂热的人.多数人的欢喜,自然伴有少数人的失望.Obama个人以及民主党的胜利,或许带给人们更多的希望,但面对1930年以来最严重的经济危机,今后的路仅靠乐观是完全不够的.Bush留下的烂摊子就要全权交给Obama处理了,这对后者不公平但是没办法,但愿美国人是选对了人.学生的政治热情又能持续多久也有待考察,我不希望只有一夜的昙花一现.但现实是除了第二天的政治课用了整节课谈论大选,发现学校前晚庆祝的消息和视频已经被放上了CNN和Youtube,认真地看了Obama和McCain在结果揭晓之后的演讲(应该说两人都讲得很好,Obama的感召力和McCain的大度让人印象深刻)以外,学校似乎很快又恢复了以往的平静.

 

Bush的失败无疑是共和党此次竞选的阴影.尽管McCain再三强调他与Bush不同,但民众却很难再信任共和党,宁肯换民主党试试,也就是选党不选人的逻辑.近期的金融危机更是对共和党的打击,它不仅再次表明Bush把国家推进了深渊,也让更多人呼唤改变,而这正是Obama的竞选口号.无论是怎样的改变,无论改变能有多大,如此应时应景的口号,自然能够赢得民众的心.从Obama当选的那一刻起,改变也随之到来.

 

Obama的当选应该是意料之中的事,但当这样的历史时刻真地到来的时候,当美国这样一个至今种族问题依然严重的国家,由人民自己选出了第一位黑人总统的时候,还是有点难以置信:今后的几年里,人们将随口叫出President Obama了!他的当选是少数裔美国人的胜利,同时也是美国社会包容性的最好证明.但他的当选并不能掩盖这个社会依然存在的种族歧视和因种族差异造成的不平等,他的当选也不完全因为他是黑人,而是他相比McCain更适合在此时成为总统.越来越多的人把Obama和Kennedy相提并论,自然缘于他们强大的领袖气质,都是敢于挑战多数的少数人,但Obama是否也会有和Kennedy一样的结局呢,多少令人担忧.

 

我一向很怀疑个人魅力在一个民主的制度里到底有多大作用.尽管Obama本人确实很有领袖气质,聪明,自信,沉稳,善辨,所有的拉票,演讲,辩论让他有如明星一般.但我还是担心明星政治是否在造成某种假象,日后人们恐怕也会发现Obama的政策有很多问题.就在竞选结果出来的第二天,股市的行情并没有好转,各种指数依然在下跌,也算印证了我的怀疑.

 

无论怎样,祝贺Obama,祝福美国,相信他们是在国家危难的时刻用民主的方式选择了他们最需要的总统.

 

General Education

 

The idea of general education has just been brought to Chinese universities these years by Chinese intellectuals, who experienced American universities and colleges. Some of the best Chinese universities are endeavoring to learn from American counterparts, I observe the improvement is subtle without changing utilitarian social atmosphere and university educational system. There is still a long way to go if Chinese universities wish to compete against American colleges.

In some sense, the Chinese university system kills students. As written before, students may not get into their choice of major, but are placed into what their examinations scores reach. More disappointingly, the chances for major transferring are very limited, based on one’s GPA, a test for transfer and an interview. Except in Shanghai, there is no way for students to transfer to other universities, resulting in many ridiculous cases, such as students re-taking the National University Entrance Examination in order to get into another university or just another major.

Apart from personal interests, the reason why many students want to transfer is that most students dream of getting into those hot majors: business, management and law, which both society and parents assume would ensure students of getting well-paid jobs after graduation. Such majors have the highest score lines in the entrance exam, and the lowest opportunity for transferring into. In comparison, American students are practical as well, but at least one needs to go to a law school for a graduate education before becoming a lawyer, and many liberal arts colleges resist business major in the name of liberal arts education.

Most Chinese universities understand general education as more classes added to take outside one’s major, so there are many introduction courses opened to all students. Because of the introduction nature of the class, one may use a semester to learn the complete history of Chinese philosophy without reading one or two classical books. Not many students or teachers really take it seriously, as students have already concentrated on their majors, so more extra knowledge feels like a burden.

Fudan University has made much more progress than other Chinese universities in terms of general education. It has set up a Fudan College for freshmen especially. For the first time, freshmen share dorms not based on their majors. In the first year, there are not too many major required classes, leaving space for students to choose what they want to learn. Both my student discussion classes were in my general education class about Daoism. I appreciate what Fudan has improved, as I enjoyed my freshman year in many interesting classes with inspiring professors. However, many things are not easy to put through with only one university’s effort.

General education is not something new to the American college, as it has already put into practice for more than 100 years. Each school varies in specific classes, but shares common devices and the same goal: a well-rounded education. If it is not required to take math, I would not meet Prof. Seltzer, who used his body to illustrate a calculus concept and had tricky quizzes with random guessing bonuses. If not for small classes, I would never have had thought-provoking discussions, even debates, in class, until I took Revolutionary China and Education and Society.

Through general education, the American college helps students find what they want to learn, and motivates them to love what they learn. There are so many opportunities for students to take advantage of, such as “undecided” majors, self-planned majors, and transferring to other majors or schools, all supporting a search for the most suitable education. As a comparatively more flexible system, American colleges encourage students to explore their potential talents a great deal.      American general education is not without attack from professional trends, as some liberal arts colleges started to provide extra vocational programs. Ithaca College, which states itself as “blending liberal arts and professional programs of study” (The Ithacan), illustrates a good example. In theory it sounds perfect, while in reality it seems implausible. Many students on campus now are “disengaged from pursuing more fundamental subjects or current issues because their time is devoted to their specific major” (The Ithacan). Some students are aware of major concentration as a problem, as one said, “[we need to] be teaching a lot of different disciplines for more than just a reason than ‘this is a good career for me’” (The Ithacan), but others do not consider it a problem. Some alumni also said that the education was great for their jobs, but they wish they had taken a broader range of courses. Again, “the professional culture on campus is overwhelming, which isn’t necessarily a negative thing, but support for a culture of broad, liberal education is not as great” (The Ithacan).

Academics

 

As for college education, what I most focus on is the quality of academics. Through my experiences, I have to say the workload in American college is much heavier than in Chinese university, which is the opposite of the situation in high school or before. American colleges also provide a better atmosphere in which students can study and grow.

When I was in Fudan, I had around 10 courses per semester, which is an average number for each Chinese university student. I spent most time in class, from eight in the morning, till nine at night. Most classes meet once, two hours, in a week. However, I do not think I really took effort for each course besides taking notes and listening to teachers. For most classes, there were not many required readings, nor were there many essays or presentations. Whether you read or how much you did was totally up to you. You can study hard, but it may not be reflected in class, as teachers will lecture the whole class without asking any questions. Not to mention, there are no student discussions. The grades mostly depend on mid-term and final exams, and that is all. Thus, many students choose to sleep in class, or not to go to class, even just show up at the first and the last of each semester. Some students can copy other’s notes, and then get a good grade for the final test without attending most of the class. Absences happen too often, as professors do not always ask for sign-ins. The reason for that is simple: each class usually has more than 100 students, so it is impossible for professors to know each student, and it would cost 10 minutes to call all those names.

A more severe academic problem in Chinese universities is plagiarism. Almost no teachers warn students about the consequences of plagiarism, or give instructions about how to cite other articles. Students take it for granted that they may quote from online resources in paragraphs or even the whole essay without acknowledgment. A Yale professor who exchanged to teach in Beijing University for one year, found three students plagiarizing in their papers. As he wrote in an open letter to his students, “Plagiarism disturbs me greatly, both because it corrodes my relationship with you as my students, and because it tells me things about China and Beida [Beijing University] that neither you nor I want to hear” (Stearns) The social ignorance of international intellectual property rights, the professors’ tolerance and few punishments towards plagiarism, along with the students’ unawareness of what plagiarism is, all contribute to the problem.

I do not want to be biased according to my personal experiences. Undoubtedly, there are many hard working students, (as Chinese students always seem to be,) especially those science major students. However, without a good academic atmosphere, the general situation is hard to change. There are also universities that push students to study even harder than in high schools, but I am afraid only Qinghua University and Beijing University, the top two Chinese universities, belong to this category.

Before coming to America, I heard the American college education would challenge students a lot, and I was prepared that my easy time at Fudan would no longer exist. But not until I started my classes and got those syllabi at Ithaca, did I really feel pressured, if not scared. How many readings for each class? How many essays, projects, tests or presentations will there be in a semester? All these instructions are clearly shown to students. I remember my first essay was due two days after the first class. As everything is scheduled time by time, it is hard to catch up if misses an assignment.

In comparison, the American college pushes students much harder to learn than the Chinese university. It is not allowed, nor bearable, for students to take more than six courses per semester. Because class size is much smaller, teachers know each student, so there is no change to escape class without notice. In order to participate in class discussion, you need to be well prepared before class. Essay assignments or tests can also reflect whether one takes time reading or learning. Plagiarism is a very severely punished academic issue, as all professors will note it in their syllabi, so one must take care of a bibliography for each paper. A minimum GPA is required if one wants to keep scholarships.

As a Chinese student major in arts, I wonder why I could easily excel in science here. I took Calculus I last semester, but I found nearly all those materials were what I learned in high school. In class, I always felt sleepy, though the professor was very active. Only those funny questions raised by American students would wake me up. Unsurprisingly, I got an A without too much effort. The same situation happened this semester when I took a chemistry class. Science classes here usually start from a lower level, but quickly cover a lot of knowledge without deep exploration. Students do not need tons of practice, but rather must understand the general concepts.

Actually, if comparing to other American colleges, Ithaca is not the most academically rigorous school, but I already felt the weight of workload here. As American college students claimed: work hard, play harder. No matter how many other things one has to do, studying is still one of the main parts of college life. Though almost no American students would devote all their time into studying, there are many students that could balance well between work and play.

Admission

 

I would like to start the comparison from the very beginning of the college experience: the process of school admission. Both Chinese universities and American colleges use examinations as one of the standards, but they weigh scores differently and cause social inequality respectively.

In China, a student’s National University Entrance Examination score is the only standard for admission. Some provinces share a same version of the test, while some big cities have their own versions. But basically, each student needs to take Chinese, math, and English. Students majoring in arts have to choose politics, history, and geography, while science major is required to take physics, chemistry, and biology. The level of difficulty is unimaginable for American high school students, even though it has recently been lowered.

As I wrote in the ability grouping essay, scores decide everything for Chinese students: what kind of university you could get into, even which major you could be accepted into. My teachers always used a vivid description to show us how fierce the competition is: one grade lower, there will be a playground of students ahead of you! Because the examination is held only once a year, those who fail to get into a satisfactory university have to study and wait for another whole year to give it a second try.

Due to unequally distributed educational resources, each school’s score line varies among nearby provinces. Students in suburban areas need to get much higher scores than those in cities, so as to get into universities. In 2001, in Beijing, the number of high school graduate students is only 0.9 % of the country, but at Beijing University, 13% of the overall accepted students came from Beijing. Fudan University even accepted 40% of students from Shanghai (Hu). In 2002, 5.27 million students attended the exam, and the expected average accepted rate is 52%, but such rates were over 70% in both Beijing and Shanghai (Yang). Students in provinces with larger populations also have much fiercer competition and higher score lines to get into university. In 2002, the accepted score line for arts students was 462 in Beijing, and 497 in Shanghai, but 568 in Shandong, and 562 in Henan (Yang). The latter two provinces are among the most highly populated provinces in China.

Though competition is still very rigorous, most universities have already largely raised their accepted student numbers, which resulted in problematic consequences. From 1999 to 2001, the number of university students rose from 1.08 million to 2.7 million, so the accepted rate stretched from 36% to 57% (Yang). It seems like just overnight, many super-sized universities popped up with 50 thousand undergraduates and 10 thousand graduate students (Yang). Nearly all those professional schools and colleges changed their names to universities, which sounded much better. At the same time, the ratio of university students to teacher reached 18.2:1, some even over 35:1 (Yang). Chinese universities become markets for trading diplomats, rather than sacred places for cultivating talented students.

Both score lines and numbers of accepted students are made by the Ministry of Education, thus universities do not have the choice to search for students they want. Only in recent years, has the right of independent admission been given back to some of the most prestigious universities. They will provide examinations and interviews for those students recommended by high schools, and then select the best ones to offer them extra grades added to their national examination score. Especially in 2006, Fudan University started a real independent admission by accepting 300 students through its own exams and interviews without taking the national examination (Liu). Though some doubt whether such approach opens the possibility to use power or money to buy students into the best schools, I believe it is inevitably a future trend of admission reform.

When Chinese educators talk about national examination reform, they usually take the American SAT as a model example: it takes places seven times a year; students can take the SAT as many times as they want until they get a satisfactory score; students can choose their best subjects to test in the SAT II; SAT scores are only part of, even optional in, admission requirement. All these characteristics seem like indications for change to the Chinese.

American colleges examine students more thoroughly through personal statements, teachers’ recommendations, high school transcripts and extracurricular activities. Obviously, American colleges do not prefer to educate “nerds”, but well-rounded persons. The process is more humane, allowing schools to choose the most qualified applicants they want, while letting students choose the most suitable schools to their tastes.

From an outsider’s perspective, American college admission sounds great. However, when American society is taken into consideration, there are more controversies than it seems. The SAT scores actually show a racial gap between whites and blacks, which disadvantages black students during admission. For seniors who entered college in 1999: “African Americans’ average scores on the SAT I Verbal were 93 points below white students’ average scores. Blacks scored, on average, 106 points less [sic] than whites on the SAT I Math” (Frontline). Unfortunately, the scoring gap has shown no sign of closing, but has actually increased in recent years (The JBHE Foundation). There are many reasons that lead to the gap, such as the unequal education black students have received before college, the discrimination toward an African-American family background, and the European-centric curriculum of the test. The standard test reflects more social inequality than expected.

Thanks to awareness of racial inequality, American colleges tried race sensitive admission policies, but now many schools have switched to race-blind policies on constitutional grounds. It is not hard to predict the influence: the race-blind policy “drastically reduced the number of black students at the schools in the database…50 to 75 percent of the black students would have been denied” (Bowen). Based on America’s social components, it looks like a dilemma to find the balance between searching for the best students, ignoring their races, representing different racial groups of students equally, and bringing more diversity on campus.

    不知把自己Education and Society的期末论文放在这里是否合适,不知是否有人有耐心去看.

    但毕竟说了些我想说的话,恐怕回去之后和朋友们聊得也还是这些.

    因为很长,我分开来贴.

 

 

累

来之前就知道自己是自讨苦吃,美国大学的学业无疑比在中国要重,复旦那样清闲快乐的日子再不会有了.尽管有这样的心理准备,但真是到了这边,真拿到每门课程的学期安排,才有切实的压力和紧张感.每次上课都有一定的阅读量,一个学期要读多少书,要写多少论文,要有多少演讲和小组项目,要考多少次试,都一清二楚.似乎在中国大学,从来不用这东西,从来就见老师的第一堂课后身边围一大群学生问期末怎么考试.除了老师的口头说明,没有任何文字上的安排发给学生.高中老师常说,跟着老师走就行.但学生的主动性在哪儿呢?学生至少应该有权知道老师到底想怎么走啊,而且要落到文字上,不是随便说说.

对于美国大学的学业之重,只有亲自体验过才知道,再多的描述都是徒劳.因为先后体验了中美两国的大学教育,也许可以做些比较.在复旦,一学期的课程数量的确很多,大部分时间都在上课.但每门课需要付出的精力并不多,课前没有太多硬性阅读,课上主要以听为主,定期考试只在期中期末,课后不常有笔头作业.当然,偶尔不去上课可以,甚至只是偶尔去上课应付点名也可以.只要把期末考试对付好,就可以拿到好成绩.所以,学习上完全可以混过关,把时间用在玩上.至于是否看了书,看了多少书,都只有自己知道.可以很努力地学,也可以很好地玩,全在乎自己.而在美国大学,你必须学,并且必须按时完成任务,一旦拖下来就很难赶上.因为有定期测验,所以很快就能反映出那些书是否读了,那些知识是否消化了.因为常有论文,所以就必须读那些书,因为论文主要考查的就是对阅读的理解和分析能力.因为几乎每次上课都要签到,如果几次以上不去就会影响最终成绩,所以甚至不敢迟到,否则将是在众目睽睽之下进入教室.因为最终成绩事关奖学金,所以谁也不敢怠慢.但美国学生其实比中国学生还爱玩,很少有把全部精力投入学习的.也有人会不读书,那成绩上自然受影响.但也有精力着实旺盛,把学业和玩乐平衡得很好的人.

作为母语非英语的学生,自然要比美国人花更多时间在学习上.真的很羡慕他们的阅读和写作速度,不知我自己要花多少年才能赶上.他们可以,也大都是临交前一个晚上把文章写好,我却要提前好几天,找资料,构思,写完后还要去找人帮忙修改.所以每篇文章出来都至少是改过一遍以上的.有些美国朋友都诧异,一篇小东西我怎么都有那么多稿,为什么我每次都会去Writing Center,这些对于他们而言都完全没有必要.说句题外话,我奇怪中国大学为什么没有Writing Center这样的地方,那外国学生怎么办呢?即使是中国学生也不都是擅长写作的啊.尽管美国朋友和老师会说,我的英语已经很好了,而且他们都说这话不是恭维,但只有我自己最清楚,提高英语水平还有很长的路要走.尤其是作为学文科的,文字是自己的命根子.脱离了自己的语言环境,要用另一种语言表达出同样深度的东西,就必须要求有过硬的语言功底了.尽管写作不完全是语言的问题,不同语言的写作亦有共通之处,凭借我的思想也许可以在两种语言的写作中闪光,但语言永远是思想的拐杖,会很大程度上牵制思想.我不好说仅过了一个学期英语能有多大提高,现在自己还看不出,只有在不断的使用中才能显现吧.

尽管学业已经比中国重了,但如果只有学业,美国大学也不会那么累.其实累就累在,除了学习之外,还有很多事情要做,很多活动要参加.奖学金的一部份就是on campus job,所以每周至少有几个小时要去工作.此外,各种志愿者活动,社团活动,外出活动,所以每天都感觉过的很累.要想要做的事情太多,而且都是有时有点,一个接着一个.几乎每天都在图书馆学习到一两点才回宿舍,晚上躺在床上,都不知道这一天是怎么过来的,都几乎要忘记这天早上所干的事情了.每次放假,真是彻底的放松,因为深知开学后将是更加疯狂的忙碌生活.那次CCLR在外三天,几乎没有干任何学习上的事情.回来之后第二天就有一个期中考试,还是因为我外出而推迟的.周中还有一篇文章,其他的阅读我整整赶了一周才大致读完.感恩节前一周,我竟然有两篇7页的论文要交,还有两个考试.论文写得很认真,确实说了一些自己想说的话,但最后竟然都是B,可想而知付出的努力不被认可是什么滋味.期末考试前一周Circus竟然安排了一场演出,所以那周几乎每天晚上排练,好在周四演出效果不错.而我有一篇期末论文周五交,所以一周都过得不踏实.期末完成的几篇文章实在没有时间去Writing Center修改了,还好有朋友帮忙.最疯狂的一天是,早上睡过一堂课,中午上完课没有时间去吃饭,因为有人约我帮忙修改中文.想买点咖啡和面包结果忘带卡.愤怒那人又一次失约,于是爬上山回宿舍取钱.好不容易吃了几口,又要赶去和写作老师见面谈我的作文,结果是我决定另起炉灶,花一个小时谈的话题作废.因为聊得过久,下午课迟到了.上完课赶忙去剧场排练.两小时之后饿着肚子回到图书馆,因为另一个人也约我帮她修改中文对话.还没改完,Ithacan的人就来约我做关于国际学生的采访,我只好让她等一下.采访聊了很多,不过感觉那些话我都重复讲过很多次了.之后终于去吃了晚饭.回宿舍后朋友又约要出去喝奶茶,只好同去.无聊地坐了一会儿又拍了些很傻的照片才回到学校.因为是周五晚上,朋友又说要一起看<越狱>,于是又一次不由自主.等我再次回到宿舍,已经是第二天了.

这日子过得充实得可怕.尽管有些时候是不自愿的,但毕竟是和朋友在一起,也还开心.更多事情还是自己想干的,但真是自找苦吃,自己把自己弄得这么累.有的朋友没参加什么活动,只是学习,毕竟学业很重,但后来才觉得这样的生活有些无聊.也有朋友学习上很轻松,更多时间花在了活动,party上,过得很愉快.我自然是重视学业的人,但其他活动也参加了一些(party除外),就变得这么累了.

归属感

这是我来之前没有想到的问题,却是我来之后最先碰到并一直面对的问题.我并不觉得有什么Cultural Shock,或者有一个漫长的适应阶段.如果说有什么不适应,那就是对于这里白人占主流的社会的隔膜感,这是很难适应的.

刚来几天后的野营,第一次让我感觉到了交流的障碍. 这种困境不完全是因为国籍,种族或者肤色,而是由它们所引起的文化环境,生活环境,思考方式,行为方式的差异所造成的.人与人的交流其实永远是困难的,只是在这种情况下难度被扩大而凸现出来了.

作为组里唯一的国际学生,其实我已经很努力地想融入他们,但更多时候我无法主动.语言不是主要问题,我可以听懂他们说的是什么,但我未必了解或者感兴趣他们的谈话.我尝试和一些人聊,但她们似乎也没有太大兴趣.有很多事情我不熟悉,也没有什么人向我解释,所以我唯一能做的就是沉默地站在一旁静观.正是仲夏,风景其实好极了,满眼绿色.呆在林子里,实在是难得的闲暇和自由.但人心里是很复杂的,仿佛一切都成了旁物,无关乎己,再美的景色也无暇消受了.傍晚短暂地和同去的中国朋友在一起的时候,我们都有同感.和Danni教授聊过之后,感觉稍好,但也无非是让自己放得更开一些.问题似乎一时很难找到答案.

我曾经不相信归属感对一个人有多么重要,因为我身处和我一样的人群之中.但当人跳出自己的圈子,进入一个不同的世界,自己成为肤色上的绝对少数的时候,才发现种族之间的界限和同族之内的认同是会在无行中发挥作用的.就好比中国人无论到哪里都首先会和当地的中国人认识一样,每个人其实都在无意识中会首先寻找和自己相似的人沟通,这真的是人性的一部份么?不知道.不过因此我完全不埋怨这些美国学生,他们应该有自己的世界,我不过是闯入者.再者,美国社会其实对于不同种族,对于外来者已是相当宽容的了,因为它本身就是“杂种”,所以不会像欧洲那样排外,而永远是异彩纷呈.

后来的上课和参加的活动,多数情况下,我都是其中唯一的国际学生.从国籍的角度,Ithaca绝对是很不Diverse(多样化)的学校,这点无可否认,即使有人提醒说国籍只是一种角度,每个人其实都是不同的.慢慢地,我对于这种“唯一”似乎也没什么强烈感觉了.尽管有些时候显得形单影只,但我似乎从来就是这样,也习惯这样了.相比中国人,美国人的社交能力要强得多,但同时独立性也强得多.尽管有些课上我仍然比较沉默,但只要发言,就永远被认为想法新奇独特.我并非故意语出惊人,只是因为和多数人存在差异,所以在他们都从未想过.这不失为做局外人的一点好处.

因为各种社团和活动,而接触到更多的人,其中不乏很好的朋友,所以让我对于交流问题变得不那么悲观.一旦当人属于某个团体,有一群朋友,即使身份上显得有别于其他人,有时候依然会受到无形的冷落,别人也会有意识地注意你,问你是怎么想的,努力帮助你融入大家.如果真是非常好的朋友,有时都惊讶于自己怎么能用英语他们谈那么严肃的话题,那些似乎只属于我和我的高中好友之间的对话.固然多数美国人都是很轻,很玩笑,很八卦的,但自然也有有思想,能够认真起来的人被我碰到而成为朋友.我无疑是幸运的,但感觉幸运不能完全说明问题.其实各种各样的人哪里都有,与国籍无关.能够深入聊的朋友到哪里都很难寻找,何况是不同语言之间的朋友.但是,有难度不代表没可能.当彼此都努力去开放自己和包容别人的时候,事情也许就会有转机.

但身份认同的问题是否因为不同身份的人之间可以成为朋友而不再是问题了呢?那问题恐怕就太简单了.即使是来美多年的华人依然会感觉自己很难讲是否融入了这个社会,依然会觉得缺少归属感,否则也不会有那么多的中国城了,我的中国亲戚朋友们也不会每天只看中文频道了.毕竟任何一种社会的构架都是有倾向性的,多数人的利益总是受保护的.作为少数人群,只可能是在边缘游荡.有人说美国社会并不是一个大熔炉,因为不同种族之间很难真正融合.美国社会应该是一盘沙拉,相互粘合在一起,但又保持各自的差异性.

在这个问题上,我着实感觉到了自己的变化和矛盾.起初不习惯独自和美国人在一个小组,现在竟然不习惯参加几乎全部是中国人的旅行团.我怎么会不习惯和我自己一样的人在一起了呢?这个不习惯是从哪儿来的呢?我更喜欢看美国总统竞选的辩论和演讲,而不是中文台的国内新闻.我更喜欢和美国好友在一起深入的聊天,而不是和中国朋友在一起,听她们聊GPA,工作或者Party上认识的男朋友.对于这种转变,连我自己都吃惊.我真地这么快就被美国化了么?是因为学校给我提供了一种理想的假象,好像我很容易地就被接纳了,而没有看到真实社会中少数人依旧被歧视,少数人的利益依旧被忽视么?更多的时候,我感觉自己仿佛被夹在中间,哪里也不属于,真成张郎郎所说的“无根的植物”了.

美国人看中国

 

每次提及我来自中国,别人的反应几乎总是“that’s so cool!”也许是因为距离遥远吧.但美国人看待中国的眼光其实要复杂得多.由开学前让新生读的<巴尔扎克和小裁缝>以及关于文革的讨论,到达赖来学校的演讲以及学生中对于西藏独立的普遍呼声,再到课上播放关于六四事件中那个著名的坦克人的视频,而班上多数人举手说曾经看过,另一个课上谈到因为沃尔玛举迁中国而导致美国人失业,这甚至成为2008美国总统竞选的一个议题,还有一个电影课挑选的唯一一部中国电影是<活着>.

美国人是否过于严苛,有点哪壶不开提哪壶的味道呢?但国人自己又是否敢于正视问题,或者是争取更多途径了解更多真相呢?也许是我自己比较关注这方面话题吧,但也不得不说中国在美国人的形象中是充满争议的.美国无疑是对任何形式下的专制十分敏感的国家,任何一点制度对人的约束甚至戕害都不可饶恕.除了中国,美国人研究的兴趣还集中在法国大革命,俄国社会主义革命以及德国法西斯,这都说明了他们对于集权制度的高度警惕.

朋友,老师,父母都一直想看我写的东西,可我真是没有什么拿的出手.深知他们的期待,也明了自己的责任,所以还是趁假期,趁很多事情还没有忘记,随手记下.

 

马克思主义无处不在

本以为离开了中国也就不再会继续学马克思，但实际恰恰相反.不知是否是巧合,但我选的几门课竟然都谈到了他.美国人学马克思，但并不是作为一种意识形态在学，这就与中国差别很大了.马克思的理论的确是给西方社会敲响了警钟,为了避免发生他所预言的情况,西方社会才进行了一系列看似“社会主义”的改革.而把马克思作为意识形态的中国,恐怕并为学得多少真谛,更讽刺的是我们所进行的实践实际与马克思背道而驰,这才使其成为“最熟悉的陌生人”.

这学期我有一门Social Change （社会变革）,没想到第一篇阅读的内容就是马克思的<资本论>.美国学生当然对于他的理论不太了解,阅读起来也觉得很难,老师上课也要从马克思最基本的一些概念开始解释.但有意思的是,我们的老师是用非常形象的图画方式来讲解的.图都是学生自己画的,每个人把自己想象中应该有的资本原始积累 的场景都画到了黑板上.不过这并不是专门研究马克思的课,而是社会学课,所以马克思的理论也只作为Conflict Theory（冲突理论）的一部分,和Functionalism（结构主义）比较学习的,二者都是关于社会如何构架的学说.

还有一门哲学课，讨论到马克思主义是否构成对人权的挑战.这命题本身也许就让中国人听着不大顺耳,西方人恐怕也是看到马克思主义所影响下的社会主义国家的真实情况才会有这种怀疑的.其实,我们也都需要反思,什么才是真正的马克思主义.

I found this poem when I have decided to go to Ithaca, yet not the one in the poem. But it perfectly suits my mood right now.

 

 

      很早之前写了1,因为觉得很多话没有说完,可很久竟无后文.

 

     开学这两周,疯狂去听课,试图把所有时间都占满.之所以这样,是真的很享受听课,很珍惜也许是在复旦的最后一个学期.尽管有些课让我怀疑是否浪费了自己的时间,但更多课让我觉得这些老师和课程都是难得的精神资源,应该充分利用.不知如此四年是否还有这种感受,还是习以为常了.我有时真觉得如果这样学四年,收获也相当大了,自己怎么还是不满足.那天听到甘阳曾经在复旦关于通识教育的演讲,才又坚定了信念.

■秘密书架
　　□朱学勤

 

      向读者交待我最喜欢的书？
　　有什么样的阅读经历，就有什么样的精神年轮。二十多年前我在报考研究生时，曾盼望试卷中有一道类似的题目，让自己敞开心扉，与导师做一次深层次交流。二十多年后，我给考生出题目，总想还此夙愿，却总是被主管考试的有关规定拦住。现在有机会夙愿以偿了，却没有料到最终写下这个题目，竟是自己考自己。
　　　　
　　　　《美国与中国》
　　这是我的第一圈精神年轮。它对我的意义，并不在作者的学术观点，作者在临终前也已放弃了书中那些过分亲密的说法。意义在书外：
　　第一，70年代初期的内部出版物中，这是规定级别最高的一本，知识青年中传说最多，也最为撩人。当时为觅得此书，从千里之外搞到一张省军级介绍信，去上海福州路的内部书店，冒了一些风险。
　　第二，这本书是当年上百本内部出版物的一个象征，还有内部杂志如《摘译：社会科学版》、《摘译：自然科学版》等，是我们当时的启蒙读物，也是多年后萦绕于胸的一个历史之谜：在文革时期的上海，何以会出版这么一大批灰色“反动”书籍？
　　很多年后因偶然机会，结识当时主持此事的一位老人，方才得到解释。我问那时是否有心而为？他的回答很朴素：“我是拿着鸡毛当令箭，放大范围去做，只是为几千万上山下乡的的知识青年着想。他们在乡下，没有书读啊。北京方面来人责问，我拿出毛的批示，顶了回去。”他本来是有可能当文化部长的，他若当了这个部长，也会比后来见到的那几位有风采，也有骨气，却可能因此而被彻底牺牲。他是为一句书生意气，吃十年官司：“再坚持一周，就能打出个巴黎公社！”这样的左派，令我敬仰。政治前程结束了，文化出版事业却在隔代之后有了收获。他的襟怀学问，非今日体制内贩夫走卒者流能够望其项背。文革是需要否定的，但应该是复杂否定、深刻否定。有意栽花花不成，无心插柳柳成荫。他找到了我，我也找到了他，夜雨长谈，总嫌时间不够。至情处，总有另一幅图画在眼前叠印：我是他当年播下的思想种子，他是在收获隔代之后的播种，历史就在我们的眼前流过。
　　　　
　　　　《夹边沟纪事》
　　1961年，毛泽东在游泳池边与刘少奇发生争论。后者愤然作色：人相食，你我是要上史书的！这是毛泽东决心发动文革，拿下刘少奇的诸多因素之一。那三年发生在农村的惨剧，我在下乡时方有耳闻，后来进工厂，结识一群从信阳地区招来的青工，从他们那里，知道了什么是信阳事件。再后来从《顾准日记》中，也得到农妇易子而食的旁证。但是那个年代在在知识分子群落，是否也发生人相食的惨剧？我是从《夹边沟纪事》才第一次读到。有朋友称此书是中国的“古拉各群岛”，我以为还不够。古拉各群岛仅仅描述知识分子在集中营里被虐待，大大超过今日伊拉克美军虐待战俘的程度，却还没有触及饥荒来袭，知识分子相互蚕食之惨烈。那是真正的吃人！吃同类尸体，吃得从容不迫。中国知识分子所经历的苦难，远远超过苏俄，只是没有人触及。感谢作者杨显惠，感谢他的执着，二十世纪中国历史的这一空白，终于开始填补。
　　我之所以看重此书，还因为此书触及我个人成长史上的一个秘密。我小时候有一个表叔，倔强耿直，追求进步，与其父划清界限而决绝，终于在50年代初而得以入团。1959年因看不惯所在单位领导冬天号召群众打苍蝇，发了一句牢骚，被开除团籍、公职，发配到安徽一个杨显惠笔下描绘的那种地方。1961年冬天的一个深夜，他从劳改农场逃出，潜入上海市区找到我父亲，兄弟俩在昏暗灯光下抱头痛哭。我被惊醒，偷听了他们半夜话语，断断续续听到那个地方已经出现剥树皮为生的惨景，倘不夜奔，断无生路。那时年幼，听此夜语，内心惊悚不能言。此后父亲为他起草申诉，又怕笔迹被认出遭报复，就让我抄写，于是稚嫩的笔迹开始与恐怖、不公、迫害、反抗等阴影相随。上到小学四年级，语文老师已经被我笔下的灰色语调震惊，曾给父亲写信说：你这个孩子，长大后要么对人民大有益，要么就是一个大右派。岂料一语成谶，四十年后网上有网民对我咬牙切齿，称我为“最赤裸最极端的大右派”！果然，信然。
　　　　
　　　　《哈维尔文集》
　　每个人都有精神危机的时候，每个人如何度过精神危机，都有他独特的记忆，十五年前我就处在这一时候。我在溺水时，侥幸读到了《哈维尔文集》。
　　那时香港中文大学有陈方正诸君欲创办杂志“二十一世纪”，派青年编辑吴江波来访。江波问我需要什么书籍，我因厌恶当时大陆文人动辄以昆德拉“生命中不可承受之轻”为超脱，正寻觅与昆德拉相对的哈维尔文章，于是随口说，能否找到哈维尔的东西？恰好搔到江波痒处。在香港，他已经与另外两个朋友合作翻译了《哈维尔文集》，却不能放在商务印书馆这些大牌书店出售，但是他坚信会有人需要这一读物，果然在大陆碰到知音。两人在外滩谈昆德拉与哈维尔之对比，谈得兴起，居然就把他来约稿我应写稿的正事遗忘了。江波回去后给我邮寄此书，一次又一次，终于在第二年的第四次寄达，时在1991年的上半年。江波寄给我的这一本，应该是流传进中国大陆最早的一本哈维尔文集。后来几年，哈维尔的文章逐渐为知识界所熟悉，甚至有了不同意见，发生争论。桃李不言，下自成蹊，哈维尔做不做总统，本来就不重要，我只是感念他的思想如长夜暗火，领我走出了那两年的精神危机。还有江波，他后来离开中文大学去美国，逐渐失去了联系。书还在，人却不见了，怀念一本好书，自然会怀念一个失散多年的朋友。

 

    

      文章是一个多月前看到的了,寒假里便去找那些书.尽管几个月的大学时光让我意识到,朱学勤所想不过是一种理解而已,他也有自己很大的局限;做学问最重要的是要亲自去面对原典,有自己的独立思考,而不是通过读二手材料形成某种前见,但我还是不愿很快地丢掉他.
      要了解的东西太多太多,这也迫使人找出更加合理的顺序和方法.但愿我没有走太多弯路.

 

    上周朱学勤竟然来学校做演讲了!而我竟然一点也不知道!

    就只好这样错过,就只能依旧以阅读的方式接触他的思想.

    因为是鲁迅逝世70周年,这期<南方周末>关于鲁迅的文章相当多.其实鲁迅文字本身对我的影响,也许比钱理群研究鲁迅的文字对我的影响还小.这也许并非好事.我急需自己去感受鲁迅,去了解更多人对鲁迅的评价.读到朱学勤的文字,震动自然不小.

 

鲁迅的思想短板 南方周末　  　2006-12-14 14:56:28

□朱学勤 　　 　　70年后谈鲁迅———已经是争议而不是盲信，这一步来之不易。倘若鲁迅活到今天，他首先高兴的应该是争议，而不是磕头作揖。他留给后人的遗产是精神，不是商业或学术利润。满城鲁氏广告，以及为商业利润阻止人们对鲁迅的争论，只能证明鲁迅生前即开始疏离那座城市，确有几分远见。这个人也不会希望围绕一本书、一个人形成一个“学科”，养活那么多文学教授，这从他当时对“红学热”、“红学界”保持距离，大致可以推断。亦可见他如何嘱托后事：第一，后代不可做文学家，尤其不可做空头文学家。所谓“空头文学家”，倘不伤害文学，一个最浅表的解释是，没有文学作品的文学家，以及通过文学评论做成的“思想家”。第二，希望他的文字“速朽”，“死后埋掉”，“拉倒”。大文豪留下如此遗言在文学史上十分罕见，几乎是一份反文学遗嘱，口气之绝决，显然反映他对一生从事的文学事业是如何绝望，此外，也是要堵死身后文学界对他各种方式之利用。前一点周海婴做到了，后一点许广平没有做到，形格势禁，她也做不到。如果鲁迅能看到自己的遗骸，上面爬满“鲁学家”而且是密密麻麻，由此产生与“红学界”紧邻的一个“鲁学界”，这个本身就活得不快乐的人，只会在死后增加一层痛苦，痛苦得抽搐。 　　鲁迅精神不死，能够活到今天的遗产只有一项：对当权势力的不合作。胡适晚年曾回顾五四之后分手的两位同道，说他们倘若活得足够长，一定会殊途同归。说陈独秀的那一句很对，说鲁迅的那一句则靠不住。即使鲁迅与胡适齐寿，能证明“是我们的人吗”？这句话对一半，错一半。对的这一半，对应鲁迅这一份精神遗产。错的那一半，正好与当今“鲁学界”所回避者重合，大多可商可议，甚至是可歌可泣——— 　　经济学解释。读鲁迅日记，恰如读鲁迅遗嘱，满篇皆为“阿堵物”，令文学青年添堵。毛泽东对鲁迅赞不绝口，但他肯定不会有耐心读完鲁迅日记。尽管鲁迅和他一样忽视经济自由，尤其是制度层面的经济自由，但是鲁毕竟与他有一点不一样：毛个性张扬，支撑他的是天子特权，鲁迅个性独立，要依靠他自己小心打理财务，并没有“特别会计室”在身后伺候。于是我们看到毛泽东能攒下200万稿费，这在消灭私产的年代，几乎是中国最大一笔私有财产，而鲁迅每天晚上却要在灯下记录钱进钱出，一丝不苟。鲁迅反对当时的经济制度，但那样的制度在形而下层面却支撑他完成写作，他一刻也离不开那样的制度。他不避后人毁誉，认真记录“阿堵”，这一点做得很磊落，至少能证明他生前就没有死后可登祭坛的小九九。这些形而下记录是被一个经济学家揭示的，难以进入文学家的视野，他们还在悲愤地说：鲁迅吃的是“草”，吐出的是“奶”！这部日记却告诉后人，鲁迅吃的不是“草”，而是“奶”，而且是自由经济的“奶”，而不是统制经济的“草”，否则，我们就不会有“鲁迅”，只会有“鲁学界”。 　　教育史解释。中国是在1905年废了科举，不到一代人的时间里，科举制废墟上突然矗立起全新教育体系，这是本国教育史的奇迹，也是世界教育史的奇迹。这一现代教育体系，既有民国初年一代“海归”通体合作，也有英美派与日俄派的迅速分裂。分裂从属于更为宽广的世界史背景，但在当时却烙有很local的省籍情绪。鲁迅前半生是这一体系的受益者——脱离教育界多年，还享受教育部300银元的“奶”，但就整体言，他是这一体系的出局者。他后来对大学体系的刻薄嘲讽，未必是文化批判的精品，但从教育史来读，却是一份不可多得的史料，可征可信。 　　社会学解释。上述分裂与社会转型有关，昔日转型今日再次启动，因为有重演，反而能更清晰地看清前一幅画面。邓小平解决香港回归提出“一国两制”，但就大陆本身言，却是“一制三国”：沿海中国、内陆中国和边疆中国。社会转型无论是初次、再次，或者还有第三次，这“三国演义”都是渐次递进，从一个沿海“大外滩”扩及至内陆中国、边疆中国。“大外滩”无论发展快慢，或有无特区、租界，吸收能力总是落后于内陆与边疆失学、失业者的蜂拥而入，两者之落差，当年是革命源泉，今日成网络口水，“愤青”变着脸出现。只不过当年的“愤青”按照“政治正确”，是一定要称为“文学青年”或“进步青年”的，那时尚无“愤青”、“愤老”此雅号，也没有“北漂”、“南漂”之分途。胡适乃五四之父，只能满足“余永泽”，不能吸引“林道静”，跟不上五四之后越演越烈的“丘九”潮流(“丘八”之后有“丘九”)，那是他活该倒霉，命中注定“暴得大名”者，必有社会学困境。鲁迅之不幸，是在上述争逐中出局，鲁迅之精敏，是他始终不离开沿海中国，就在“大外滩里”守一个小孤岛———租界“且介亭”，这就守住或开辟了沿海中国里的内陆中国。试看萧红、萧军之秉性，今日北大、复旦中文系的旁听生中并不乏见。“林道静们”今天是要受大学正途歧视的，于是就到网络上去泄愤，但在当时却有一个“且介亭”可以挤进去取暖。那时在上海发生报刊文人与教授集团之争吵，这一恩怨延伸到“文革”初期才有个了断。1966年是左翼文人从报刊上发难开始，讨伐大学里“资产阶级反动学术权威”，这一幕可解为百年棋枰，内陆中国对沿海中国终于从文学上“收官”，出局者回来收拾残局，确实是“笑”到了“最后”，“笑”得“最好”。那时当然有毛泽东更为深刻的政治谋略，以及1949年以后特有的意识形态话语，但就历史纵深言，“大批判”发端于报刊，教授集团在大学校园里戴高帽敲锣，这两幅画面皆可从1930年代那一个回合中找到遥远伏线。 　　政治学解释。这方面说得最多、评价最高者，非毛泽东莫属。尽管他知道鲁迅生前在他诗词中读出过“山大王气”，但还是不吝笔墨，讴歌鲁迅为“空前的思想家”、“空前的民族英雄”。这么高的评价，今天连鲁迅的后人都不太好意思在70周年纪念中再次引用。但毛泽东也是坦率的，比所有的“鲁学家”都可爱。1957年在上海，他坦言如果鲁迅还活着，要么是保持沉默，要么是呆在监狱里，这句话能给毛泽东与鲁迅的政治关系盖棺定论。鲁学界现在很为难，为维护这两面，尽可能不损害其中一面而大费周章。鲁迅晚年一再声明他是要听“将令”，写“遵命文学”的，如此支持“左联”事业，为什么这一支持只能被利用，而不能贯穿始终？也许可以这样辩护，他们也确实这样辩护了：这能证明鲁迅追求的是民主，故而胜利后才有那样的困境。如此“民主”辩护，不符合鲁迅思想原貌———他生前信仰的“超人意志”而不是“愚民当家”；同时也损害毛泽东形象———既然称人为“空前的民族英雄”，为什么要让这样的“民族英雄”胜利后保持沉默？即使牺牲毛泽东形象，也还是回避不了对鲁迅的诘问：五四那一辈他有很多同道，为什么其他人的民主追求不可能被利用，惟独鲁迅能？这一问题已经出现，毛称鲁迅的骨头最硬，谢泳发问：为什么最硬的骨头会成为打人的棍子？辩护者说，这是鲁迅身后事，与鲁迅无关。若果我是谢泳，一定追着问：胡适未见得“软”，陈独秀则更“硬”，同样也有一个“身后”，为何他们没成为、也不可能成为打人之“棍”？ 　　思想史解释。作为“空前思想家”的鲁迅，短板恰在思想，而不在其他，他的杂文艺术确实是最好的。鲁迅之坦率不亚于毛泽东，曾坦言他的思想支撑是“个人的无治主义”，用今天的话来说，就是“无政府主义”。这是思想史上很严肃的一个学派，19世纪曾与马克思主义同床共眠，虽同床异梦，却为后者争取到数不清的激进青年，尤其是文学青年。无政府主义席卷五四一代，是重演19世纪欧洲思想史的老版本，也是为马克思本人深恶痛绝的一幕。那时是马克思主义第二次进中国，并不是第一次，为什么能突破辛亥前第一进中国之困境？这就要感谢而不是憎恶无政府主义。这是落后国家转型期屡见不鲜的社会学现象，并不仅限于中国。无政府主义不仅与马克思主义同床异梦，也与这一类地区的民主追求同床异梦，甚至是以更决绝，因而也更具审美价值的方式，与后者貌合神离。这一块思想短板，存在于鲁迅，也存在于鲁迅生前身后诸多信徒和欣赏者。终其一生，鲁迅不屑于代议制民主，自然要与胡适决裂，也自然会被毛泽东激赏。至于毛泽东的浪漫无政府主义怎么会与气象森严的列宁主义相结合，则是思想史上比鲁迅较为烦杂的另一问题。但在这里可以先提一笔：无政府主义与马克思主义是思想上的貌合神离，与列宁主义则是政治天敌，能把无政府主义者送入监狱的是后者，而不是前者。鲁迅信徒前期如萧军、后期如胡风皆遭整肃，秘密潜伏在这里；鲁迅本人活到1957年也只能进监狱，秘密也预设在这里。毛泽东进城前激赏鲁迅，缘于他们的共同气质———“个人的无治主义”，进城之后突然坦言鲁迅继续写，只能进监狱，那是出于他的列宁主义。鲁迅毕竟是文学家，弄不懂“个人的无治主义”与马克思主义是貌合神离，也因为他去世太早，看不到他与列宁主义只有1957式的政治关系。惟毛泽东一拍两响，既能激赏鲁迅，也不妨碍他坦言无忌，把心爱的鲁迅如何如何。马克思主义也好，列宁主义也罢，再加一个“个人的无治主义”，这三者亲密碰撞，会发生惨痛迸溢的光芒，具有强烈的美学效果，正是这种悲剧性美学效果，被各国“林道静们”误认为是民主悲剧，其实是哪里归哪里，俱不相干。 　　这个“主义”不仅能解释鲁迅的思想结构，也能解释“鲁学界”新提出的一些观点：其一，鲁迅身前已经感觉此类革命一旦成功会对他不利，留有一些要“出走”的警告。其二，鲁迅晚年加入“左联”，是要在“左派内部造反，以激活左派政治”。要解释前一点并不难：这不正是继续革命、不断革命的心理起点？革命尚未结束，革命人已不耐烦，毛泽东恰恰是在“文革”前夜感到孤独，生平第二次达到怀念鲁迅的高潮，抄录迅翁诗曰：“万家墨面没藁莱，于无声处听惊雷”。后一点也不神秘：无政府主义的思想性格就是如此，历史上并不是第一次这样干，可以说一贯使然，19世纪欧洲思想史不断上演这一版本，普鲁东在法国左翼中这么干，巴枯宁在俄国左翼中也曾这么干，都是在“左派政治中造反，以激活左派政治”。无政府主义是比“左”，比左还要左，要不然马克思面对这些思想盟友就不会那样烦躁不安。此外，这一“主义”还能部分解释“鲁迅的骨头硬”，这是因为他与民主不相干，聚焦于意图伦理，而不是责任伦理。民主与责任伦理相伴，顿失滔滔，与美学效果无缘，不可能让文学青年称心如意。一旦与鲁迅相比，胡适确实暗淡，这是他除了上述社会学困境外还要有第二宿命：美学宿命。此外，无政府主义调动的是反专制情绪，反专制未必是反过来的民主，很可能是专制之候补。专制者之来源，首推世袭，可惜血缘稀少，但它可以从对立面吸取候补，这就大大增加“造血细胞”，能突破数量限制。无政府主义在思想史上很长寿，通常是情绪偏强思维偏弱，因为是“闹情绪”，故而容易入门，生生不息。19世纪曾让马克思烦躁的东西，21世纪却绕到了他视野背后，成为他身后殿军，很可能是中国的“后现代主义”？后现代无论是把格瓦拉、鲁迅搬进“剧场”恶搞，还是在书房里作“理论长考”，最底下一层还是当年的情绪。故而今天中国的左翼文人，对外拥抱后现代主义，对内拥有鲁迅后裔的悲痛神色，这两者在逻辑上恰好内洽，用不着羞羞答答。只是他们不敢像鲁迅当年那样坦率，坦言自己是“个人的无治主义”，在这方面又突然软了下去。 　　国民性改造”。最后，应该谈谈文学家的最爱———“国民性改造”问题了。 　　“国民性改造”在本国思想史上确有渊源，上承梁启超推卸戊戌变法失败之责，四亿同胞人人有份，故而提出”新民“说，今天上海《新民晚报》的报头，还能看到这块思想化石。下启毛泽东改造旧人的“文革”理想———”红雨随心翻作浪“，”六亿神州尽舜尧“。但就鲁迅当年留学日本言，那个岛国急于脱亚入欧，又不想彻底改造制度，才会将改造热情转移至人脑：在文化改造、人性改造上狠下功夫。当年与日本同享一个家族谱系的德意志则更早，落后于西欧，不服于西欧，故而提出德意志“文化”优越于西欧“文明”这一说。从费希特到尼采，从尼采到海德格尔，“文化决定论”开出的单子很长，中国士人接上去的单子则更长。希特勒之所以能上台，是得益于这一条思想脉络的，文化革命之所以能发生，也是得益于这一思想谱系。国家社会主义(简称纳粹)推行种族清洗，是有文化“理由“的：为净化国民性，不得不然！只不过德意志傲慢，日本人自卑，前者是净化，后者是改造，两家人在上下两端共同推进“国民性基因工程”。鲁迅留学国为日本，“国民性改造”流入他血脉，无须苛责。此前此后还曾多次表述对尼采哲学的向往，“个人的无治主义”是他的政治思想，若问哲学倾向，他肯定会坦承是尼采超人意志说，而不是“为人民服务”。经过反法西斯血浴，文明世界里若有提“国民性改造”，会把人吓个半死。经过1950年代“改造”高潮，中国的幸存者也会有类似感受。听者先会问：“谁来改造，谁有权力改造？凭什么改造？” 　　鲁迅当年是没有见到“改造”后果的，应该为他庆幸。毛泽东说“鲁迅的心是与我相通的”，一点没说错，不仅“个人的无治主义”与“和尚打伞，无法无天”息息相通，“国民性改造”也与“灵魂深处爆发革命”一脉相承。历史上有机会实践此类主张者，也不仅仅是法西斯这一翼。法国革命、俄国革命、中国的文化大革命，乃至红色高棉改造金边的“四一七新人”，代代有其人。另一方面，二战后出现同一块“国民性”版图分裂：东、西德，南、北韩，南、北越。民主的养成在民主本身，宪政的训练也只能在宪政，这一点倒是胡适1930年代说得对。大陆同一块土地，没有“版图分裂”，但也有两个社会阶段可举例：“文革”与改革，还原为人性论差异，前者是摁着手坚持“改造”，后者手一松，社会大还俗，国民性立刻还原，还只是政策变异，就引起多么相反的社会后果，究竟是哪一面好，那一面劣？人不是神，也没有“超人”，“人改人”只能吓死人、改死人，如今还能迷惑人，只说明中国仅有“文革”之难还不够；灾难虽然在政治层面被否定，但在思想上还没有被反思，或者干脆说：连个像样的反思都还没有。 　　鲁迅就没有任何精神可以继承了吗？当然不是。前面说过，他对当权势力的怀疑，以及由此发生的不合作，是可以继承的。但要用到左派一句老掉牙的话，应该“批判地继承”，这一精神是从他那块思想短板———“个人的无治主义”开始的。虽然，思想史上的歪打正着，过去有，现在有，将来也会有。

 

     终于可以在这里写字了，之前无数次的登陆失败都可忽略不记。已经好久没有动笔写字，也好久没有用中文构思。只有当我发觉一个话题需要严肃对待，才重拾中文，才有了下面这篇东西。

     

   为何去美国读大学

似乎只有把这个问题真正想清楚，我的申请才不是盲目的。其实整个申请过程中，我都在追问自己这个问题，尤其是面对很多困难和很多放弃的时候，对这个问题的回答就更显紧迫。

    对于中国大学教育现状的失望是一个原因。尽管我们在呼唤“通识教育”，但就如同我们声称要素质教育一样，难以真正实行。更多的学校把专业限制得很窄，以致成为职业学校，学生很难有时间选择其他课程，转专业也比较困难，而当初填报志愿又是那样匆忙。尽管讨论课也在增加，但更多是老师的独角戏，于是学生就很难在课前主动准备。因为每堂课人数太多，逃课是再正常不过的事情。学生还像高中一样注重成绩，为了以后能有好出路。

    我比较认同卢梭的观点,“教育的本质是生长.”如果每个人的成长是一种内在的自由,那么教育所能提供的应该是一种外在的自由。而我们所接受的教育,总是有太多的限制和压抑。当然，中国的大学在努力改变，努力向美国学习。但我没有时间等待，我的人生中只有一次大学经历。

         再看美国文理学院的教育理念，不可能不让人动心。自由的专业选择权利，对于全人教育的追求，课堂活跃地讨论，老师对学生的关注与期待，一个小的学术共同体。似乎一切都与中国大学不同，而一切又都是我所希望获得的教育。这种基于理念的认同也许是个根本性的理由，很难被撼动。

         对于中国功利浮躁的社会氛围的厌恶是另一个原因。反映在大学校园里，就是经管类永远是大热门，文史哲等基础性研究专业很少有人问津。想着如何找工作挣钱的学生很多，踏实读书做学问的人很少。学术腐败比较严重，抄袭现象普遍。

         而美国大学又完全是另一种景象。历史系总是很受欢迎，学起来也最累。学校可能因为避免专业性，而不设商科。学生都非常努力地读书，至少在学校环境里，人不是功利浮躁的。因为我的理想是做学问，所以就环境而言，美国大学更适合。

      但是,我是否因为对美国大学还不够了解,所以才对之充满美好的幻想?做学问也毕竟是自己的事情，不应该以环境为借口。既然是想做文史哲类的学问,但却要脱离自己所熟悉的语言环境,是否还能达到希望中的深度,又是未知。所以很多时候,又不那么坚定。翻着那些钟爱的书和期刊，满心欢喜地去那些很有品位的小书店，听着那些大家的讲座，难道我真要离他们远去？

         在一次讲座中，听到这样的话：“如果中国人要想成为能被世界承认的哲学家，只有提早到国外接受教育，用他们的思维方式思考问题，尽管这是很难做到的。”我未必要研究哲学，成为什么“家”，但我确实从他的话中受到了某种鼓舞。我清楚地意识到我所选择的道路的艰难，但我并不后悔这样的选择。

 

                                                         

 

     本想把和朋友的邮件往来截选至此,但情况比我想象的复杂,从中剥离出某个共同的话题并不容易.所以,只能是片段,勉强一看吧.

    

     对我而言,做学问也可能是一种对现实社会的逃避.人如果只沉浸在自己的精神世界中,获得满足的只有他自己.钱穆说,学者分为学问中人和问题中人.我觉得真正应该做的,是公共知识分子,即问题中人.做学问是因社会问题而起,最终试图解决社会问题的.这也是我从周国平转向朱学勤的原因吧,他俩正好代表了这两类人.

     

     香港这地方,似乎比上海更加不适合做学问了吧,尤其是文史哲类的学问.但关键看你想要什么,就是做学问也要看你是否能抵御环境的诱惑.在这些日子,我去了两次香港,证实了我之前对香港的感觉.在那里,我总会想起<海上钢琴师>,尤其是站在一个岛上隔岸看另一个岛时.我怎么可能喜欢这样的城市,太多的人,太多的楼,太多的选择,太多的欲望.我有个同学在那里,城市大学人文学院.幸好他是个很踏实的人,空闲时间能读很多书.所以,环境对人的影响到底有多大,还是取决于自己吧.

 

     去工作,或者做学问,其实并无高下的差别,而在于哪个更适合自己.去工作就真的会失去精神的追求了吗?对于我们这样被精神世界感动的人,阻断我们对于精神享受的需求其实已经是不可能的了.所以,人的"外在生活"可以是多样的,可以从事各种工作.我不相信只有那些做学问的人才可能坚守自己的精神追求,何况如果把做学问也只当作一种工作时,也并非我们所追求的精神状态.

 

      又是长久地沉默.

      其实感想挺多的,但是没有时间写.总想着什么时候不太忙了,一定过来写.可是怎么越来越忙了呢.

      总要找些东西来填补一下空白的.因为做申请,翻出旧日文字.只是不知,放在这里是否合适.

 

革命狂热

 

    某个人的狂热很容易被公众认为是异端，这种人不是真正的疯子就是真正的天才，都很难与社会相融。但群体性的狂热在特定的历史时期甚至被认为是理所当然，他们有着崇高的理想，为此不惜一切地做出非人性的举动，即使造成了巨大灾难也全然不知。而狂热终归会复归平静，这才发现那一切是何等荒诞，但历史已经写就而不可逆转。

群体性狂热最好的表现形式就是革命。革命，一个听上去就令人热血沸腾、心潮澎湃的字眼，何况是发动了最广大的人民群众。然而有时，革命又是最隐蔽的杀手，最血腥的阴谋。以革命的名义,一切理性的思考都被禁锢，一切正义的反抗都被绞杀，惟有狂热的追求所谓理想，才可能保全性命。

能够引发群众性狂热的必然是些彼岸理想。法国大革命的口号“自由、平等、博爱”至今令人为之振奋，卢梭的“社会公意不可违抗说”使得造反有理、革命无罪，而他的直接民主制又怎么可能在大国范围内加以实现？无论理想能否实现，但它确能从社会底层产生巨大的非理性激情，“这种非理性激情，一旦释放，将如惊涛裂岸，形成文明解构的疯狂浪潮，短期内难以平息。”（朱学勤）

然而，潘多拉的盒子一旦被打开，“人类社会的精神原子弹”一旦被“引爆”（毛泽东），历史的发展就会失去控制。社会奇异地呈献出“暴行与伟业并举，恐怖与理想并存”的特征。在“文革”中，有多少红卫兵全国大串连来到北京，让天安门广场成为一片红海洋，只为等毛主席检阅，但也正在这些红卫兵手下，有多少人被批斗、抄家、侮辱、迫害至死？同样地，在法国大革命中，“是以攻打和摧毁巴士底狱，救出七名囚徒作为开端；三年后革命的深入，共和国的成立，是以变学校、教堂为监狱，私刑屠杀千名无辜囚犯作为标志。做这两件事情的，是相同的巴黎民众。”（林达）

无辜的牺牲，与初衷完全背离的暴行，是狂热付出的血的代价。然而，革命的代价也许还不止这些。就在法国大革命之前，就在大洋彼岸的美国，给世人了一个革命的范本。“对于美国人，战争是战争，制宪是制宪，那是不可以混为一谈的两种东西”。“当然制宪也是一场革命，但真正的革命是制度的内在变更，不是街头的外在形式。”“会场之内曾经以最激烈的言辞争辩却被迫妥协的代表，签字回去之后，不是愤愤不平地发动一场新的革命，而是费尽心力，向民众解释妥协的必须，劝说民众早日投票通过，批准宪法，早日实施。”“美国革命实在没有任何可以向后代炫耀的全民攻打巴士底狱这样的浪漫革命故事，显得枯燥，却很有逻辑。”（林达）

“巴黎民众的暴动一开始，与其说是在支持，还不如说是在干扰凡尔赛的制宪议会，凡尔赛已经放不下一张安静的会议桌。他们一开始就处于被革命强制推动的尴尬局面。”“要在一群怀着对旧制度满腔怨恨的民众面前，解释为什么不能以泄愤式的方式来革命，为什么要向王室和贵族做一些妥协，将是多么困难。不论你花费多少口舌，做多少努力，都会引发这样的责问：这是什么革命？平民的？还是贵族的？”（林达）

也许数字上的对比更有说服力。“美国宪法的制定，历时三个月零二十三天。”在宪法使用的二百多年里，“完成了几十次政权的和平交接，没有一次暴力政变。”“法国宪法的制定，历时两年多……不到一年，该宪法被推翻”，之后又经历了无数次人民革命，王朝复辟，“几乎没有什么和平的政权交接。”在法国历史中，常有一句“巴黎上空再次响起革命的警钟，起义人民纷纷在各区聚集。”又何止是历史中，去年年末，法国巴黎郊区引发的全国骚乱，令世人震惊。这已不是攻占巴士底狱的封建社会时期，这是现代化高度发达的二十一世纪啊。难怪连法国人自己都承认这是一种耻辱。

对于革命的不同理解，民族的不同性格，以及各种历史因素，使得法国在新制度的构建过程中，付出了更高的代价，时间的代价。一次次恶性循环，直到一切都筋疲力尽，革命的狂热转化为理性的制宪。很难想象如果法国人民选择了完全不同的方式来表达他们的革命理想，历史将被完全改写。

幸好，革命引发的狂热不可能永久持续，“全社会将在一个早上突然翻过身来，推倒昨日还在崇拜的‘革命偶像’，并把它拉上自己设置的断头台。”“卢梭的信徒们再狂热，狂热到一夜之间割下国王的头颅，挑在广场上示众，但是或迟或早都要产生‘革命厌倦症’，要留恋起伏尔泰的那口肉锅，要从街头集会重回家中的厨房。”（朱学勤）毕竟，革命不能当饭吃。

可怕的是，群众性狂热一旦消散，人们就努力遗忘它所造成的一切悲剧，“仅仅把它视为一场完全可以避免的偶发事件，并没有什么植根于文明建构深层土壤的必然根基。”否则为何中国到现在也没有一座“文革”博物馆，法国也是近百年之后才“开始正视大革命的起因与遗训。”另一方面，人们“拼命追求市俗享受，要求加倍偿还被粗暴剥夺的感观快乐。”（朱学勤）贫富分化，信仰缺乏，社会静等又一次革命狂热的到来。

在法国大革命与“文化大革命”的对比中，我们看到了历史的惊人相似：同样的革命狂热，同样的追寻各自所谓的理想，又同样地残忍专政。再拿美国独立战争来比较，又是一种全然不同的革命景象：理性、有序、高效。固然人世间永远不存在绝对完善，但能否在历史进程中尽量避免更多断头台的悲剧，让以某某主义为名实则行法西斯专制的闹剧永不再来？

一个民族的性格影响着它的历史走向，崇尚自由、民主的美国人永远以华盛顿一代建国者为骄傲，浪漫的法国人却不得不吞下雅各宾专政的苦果。“文革”后获得新生的我们的民族，但愿它多一些务实的风气，少一些理想的光环，多一些理性，少一些狂热。

时而觉得,即使我大学四年都在复旦度过,也挺好的.

    从大一的课程来说,我绝对是通识教育的受益者:没有一门专业课,几乎全是自己选择的喜欢的.从老师而言,没有一位不是海派风格,心理学完全是用英文教材,笔记也是英文,哲学甚至中文课也时常听到英语,这对于未来出国留学是相当有利的. 课余空闲的时间其实很多,我可以毫无语言障碍地读文史哲类的书，而不必只作为兴趣.好的讲座也不少,只要有时间,尽可以去听.对于社团活动,我很满意,并因此结识了又一位精神上十分相通的朋友,更是意料之外的收获.对于上网条件,我也不该抱怨太多,尽管现在宿舍还是不行,但光华楼前的大草坪是足够惬意的,三教上网也不错.想想看,只要一台电脑,就可免费无线连接世界......

    周围小书店很多,有的可以打到三折,有的很有品位,堪比万圣.每次购书,都是一家家地转,然后满载而归,甚至把钱花得一分不剩.卖电影盘的店也不少,而且好片子,不容易找到的禁片有很多,价格都可以接受.其实,买了它们,现在并不一定有时间读,有时间看,但发现,挑选本身就是极大的满足.