大 蕃薯的部落格

人都是會犯錯的。如果抓到別人的一點小錯就大肆宣揚，那麼這世界上沒有一個人能安穩的過日子。只要在大方向上過得去，就可以了。子夏說「大德不逾閑，小德出入可也」，大概是這個意思。

 

但儒家的氣質不總是如此的。曾子的「一日三省吾身」與「士不可以不弘毅，任重而道遠。仁以為己任，不亦重乎？死而後已，不亦遠乎？」就傾向一種嚴格的自我要求路線。

 

關鍵更在於，儒家沒有上帝。反面的來看，因為缺少一個絕對的全能全善的終極標準，中國人因此無法對照出人的卑劣，且容易高估了人的善良本質。又因為缺乏一個終極的保障，因此無以獲得精神上的穩固安慰。既無對善良的保障，又無對惡的恐嚇。胡蘿蔔與棒子皆無，是以，「小人窮斯濫矣」。

 

另一方面，從正面來看，儒家實則要求每一個人往神的方向趨近，做一個純然的自發的「自因」，不斷地自我惕勵，力求完美，為自己負責，自己作自己的安慰。這是一個很艱苦的過程，只有極少數的人能做得到。

 

但這條路太難，所以儒家失敗了，宋朝之後的儒家，越來越像是一個噁心的怪物。自己作不成聖人，那也沒什麼。卻又不敢真的大方承認人都是不足的，更不能認清自己也是不足的，因此又愛彼此指指點點。

 

這種歪風，在民主化之後又更加熾烈。純就西方理論上來說，民主化意味著一種除魅的過程，人們覺醒之後，應當不再崇拜聖君賢相，應該是一個人人可以彼此尊重、寬容、接納的時代。

 

然而西方人的民主化，始終都是在基督教的背景之下進行的。因此，一種「原罪」的意識始終存在。因為在根本上基督徒認定人是不足的，因此反能互相接納缺陷（只要彼此屬於同一教派）。當然這不表示人可以用原罪來當作墮落的藉口，而是更會要求自己去追求一個完美的典範。

 

但在台灣，民主化以一種非常古怪且不完全的形式展開。一方面人們開始懂得挑戰聖賢的形象，但一方面卻也不在根本上接受人都是有缺陷的。因此，我們死勁的抓人毛病，好像不把人罵的一無是處，就是不夠民主、沒善盡公民的責任。

 

這成了一種很奇怪的現象。當我們說「人都是不完美的」的時候，固然有的時候意味著我們應該更加包容、同情。但也很多時候意味著我們一定要把那些人的缺陷可以揭發出來，來證明「人都是不完美的」這句話。

 

麥克麥里斯多將軍這個案例顯示，美國也有很糟糕的狗仔文化。但正如Brooks先生指出的，美國人曾經有典型的新教信仰與康德式的道德哲學：「human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants.」因此，他們至少可以找尋到對抗這種惡質文化的道德基礎。

 

 

 

 

 

Op-Ed Columnist

The Culture of Exposure

DAVID BROOKS             June 24, 2010


The most interesting part of my job is that I get to observe powerful people at close quarters. Most people in government, I find, are there because they sincerely want to do good. But they’re also exhausted and frustrated much of the time. And at these moments they can’t help letting you know that things would be much better if only there weren’t so many morons all around. （我的工作讓我得以近距離的觀察許多知名的大人物。我發覺到，大多數的政治人物之所以會進入政壇，是因為他們真的想好好做事。但，大多數的時候，他們也非常的疲憊且沮喪。在這樣的時候，他們免不了會抱怨是其他的白癡把事情搞砸了。）

 

So every few weeks I find myself on the receiving end of little burst of off-the-record trash talk. Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion. （所以，每隔一陣子我就成了各個參議員、白宮官員等人的垃圾桶，聽他們彼此抱怨、咒罵。我感覺，白宮像是一艘船，漂浮在一條由誹謗與中傷匯集而成的河流上。）

 

The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. Government is filled with superconfident, highly competitive people who are grouped into small bands. These bands usually have one queen bee at the center — a president, senator, cabinet secretary or general — and a squad of advisers all around. These bands are perpetually jostling, elbowing and shoving each other to get control over policy. （我們的政府體制基本上就是會刺激人們盡可能的抱怨。我們的政府充滿了超級具有自信、熱愛與人一爭高下的人。這些人彼此聚集成多個小團體，其中有一個核心人物，如總統、參議員、部長、或將軍，然後被一群策士圍繞。這些小團體永遠都在互相角力，以求爭取政策的控制權。）

 

Amid all this friction, the members of each band develop their own private language. These people often spend 16 hours a day together, and they bond by moaning and about the idiots on the outside. （在彼此的摩擦之中，各團體培養出自己的語言。他們一天花十六個小時在一起，而團解他們的凝聚力之一就是抱怨外頭的白癡。）

 

It feels good to vent in this way. You demonstrate your own importance by showing your buddies that you are un-awed by the majority leader, the vice president or some other big name. You get to take a break from the formal pressures of the job by playing the blasphemous bad-boy rebel over a beer at night. （這是一個舒緩壓力的好渠道。你向你的同伴證明你的重要性，因為你沒有被多數黨領袖、副總統、或其他大人物給嚇到。在辛苦的工作之後，你與你的伙伴在酒吧）

 

Military people are especially prone to these sorts of outbursts. In public, they pay lavish deference to civilian masters who issue orders from the comfort of home. Among themselves, they blow off steam, sometimes in the crudest possible terms. （在軍中尤其如此。）

 

Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties. （因此，媒體界就必須決定該如何處理這些如洪水般的互相叫罵。在二次世界大戰與之後的幾年當中，大家流行沈默以對。基本的想法是：人都是有原罪的、有缺陷的、墮落的動物。真正的關鍵只在於，我們是否可以克服我們的缺陷，並履行我們的義務，就好像軍人、政治家、與公務人員一樣。因此，記者刻意不報導個人的私事，而只根據公共責任為依歸來報導。）

 

Then, in 1961, Theodore H. White began his “The Making of the President” book series. This series treated the people who worked inside the boiler rooms of government as the star players. It put the inner dramas at center stage. （之後，在1961年，懷特先生寫了一系列的『總統的誕生』，這一系列的書把政府官員當作演員一樣來處理，把他們的私生活當作焦點）

 

Then, after Vietnam, an ethos of exposure swept the culture. The assumption among many journalists was that the establishment may seem upstanding, but there is a secret corruption deep down. It became the task of journalism to expose the underbelly of public life, to hunt for impurity, assuming that the dark hidden lives of public officials were more important than the official performances. （越戰過後，一種揭人陰私的風潮洗捲文化圈。這時記者們的基本假設是：既有體制內的人表面上或許正值可欽，但私底下他們一定有腐敗的一面。於是記者的新工作就是挖掘政治人物的公開形象下的弱點，抓出他污穢的一面。大家認為，政府官員的私生活要比他的公開正式作為更重要。）

 

Then came cable, the Internet, and the profusion of media sources. Now you have outlets, shows and Web sites whose only real interest is the kvetching and inside baseball. （之後各類媒體紛紛登場。）現在我們有各種資訊管道，他們唯一的訴求就是這些挖人隱私的東西。

 

In other words, over the course of 50 years, what had once been considered the least important part of government became the most important. These days, the inner soap opera is the most discussed and the most fraught arena of political life. （簡單書，過去五十年來，本來）

 

And into this world walks Gen. Stanley McChrystal. （在這個歷史背景之下，麥克克里斯多將軍的失言風波發生了。）

 

General McChrystal was excellent at his job. He had outstanding relations with the White House and entirely proper relationships with his various civilian partners in the State Department and beyond. He set up a superb decision-making apparatus that deftly used military and civilian expertise. （從各種記錄看來，麥克克里斯多將軍都是一個頂尖傑出的人才）

 

But McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched. And having apparently missed the last 50 years of cultural history, he did so on the record, in front of a reporter. And this reporter, being a product of the culture of exposure, made the kvetching the center of his magazine profile. （但，就像一般人一樣，他也會抱怨。在不瞭解過去五十年媒體的生態下，他居然在一個記者面前講出了這些埋怨的話。而這個記者，作為這個揭人隱私的文化下的產物，把麥克克里斯多將軍的抱怨當作頭條新聞來處理。）

 

By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him. （這個記者把一些了無新意的抱怨當作是麥克克里斯多將軍對總統權威的挑戰，他毀了一個優秀的軍人，而且讓歐巴馬總統不可能留下他。）

 

The reticent ethos had its flaws. But the exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important. （沈默的文化也許有其盲點，但爆料的文化，因其不斷殘酷的攻擊隱私與弱點，終於把好人都趕出了公共領域中，也摧毀了社會大眾對於政治體制的信仰，又把不重要的小事升格成重要的。）

 

Another scalp is on the wall. Government officials will erect even higher walls between themselves and the outside world. The honest and freewheeling will continue to flee public life, and the cautious and calculating will remain. （如今，一個血淋淋的教訓掛在牆上。政府官員會把他們與外在世界之間的牆築得更高。真誠、不拘小節的人會逃離我們的公共領域，而那些精於計算且小心提防的人將日漸得勢。）

 

The culture of exposure has triumphed, with results for all to see. （爆料文化取得了勝利，是好是壞，且留給大家公評。）