被背叛的鲁迅

在被世人遗忘许久之后,孔乙己这个鲁迅笔下的形象突然又活过来了。

After being forgotten by the world for a long time, the image of Kong Yiji, created by Lu Xun, suddenly came back to life.

从表面上看,他仍然是那个穷酸书生,读过书但生活凄惨,但在央媒亲自下场斥责他“下不来的高台”、“脱不下的长衫”之后,其内涵已经大变——谁都知道,这说的哪里是孔乙己?分明就是当下进退两难的大学毕业生,对孔乙己的鞭挞,无非是想说:“你们之所以陷入这样困窘的处境,只能怪你自己放不下身段。”

At first glance, he still appeared to be the poor scholar who had read books but lived a tragic life. However, after being personally criticized by the central media for being "unable to come down from the high platform" and "unable to take off the long robe," its connotation has changed significantly - everyone knows that this is not about Kong Yiji, but rather the current dilemma faced by recent college graduates. The criticism of Kong Yiji is nothing more than to say: "The reason you are in such a difficult situation is because you cannot put down your own identity."

显然,这回避了对结构性问题的批评,转而谴责个体不够努力、不能放低条件,其隐含的意味,一言以蔽之,“点背不能怨社会,命苦不能怪政府”,要怪只能怪你自己。

Obviously, this evades criticism of structural problems and instead blames individuals for not working hard enough, for not being willing to lower their conditions. Its implicit meaning can be summed up as "Don't blame society for bad luck, don't blame the government for misfortune, blame only yourself".

谈到这些,有朋友感慨:“小时候让你千军万马挤上独木桥,恨不能一心只读圣贤书,长大了却又要让孔乙己脱下长衫。”当形势大变时,似乎别的什么都不用改,只要你能屈能伸就行了,中国人还真是可塑性极强。

Speaking of these things, a friend said with emotion: "When we were young, we were forced to cross a single-plank bridge amidst a thousand horses and ten thousand soldiers, and we wished to study only the Confucian classics with all our heart. But when we grow up, we are required to make Kong Yiji take off his long gown." When the situation changes greatly, it seems that nothing else needs to be changed, as long as you can be flexible and adaptable. Chinese people have really strong plasticity.

一如当下国内的很多现象,这既像是一种保守取向的回应,又像是一种后现代的态度:一切都是你自己造成的,你得为所有过错负全责,压力已经从外部转移到了内部。借用法兰克福学派学者Volkmar Sigusch的话说,在那样的处境下,人不能表现出无助,出现什么问题,“超级现代人会认为是自己的错,而不会去怪罪体制。”

Like many phenomena in China today, this is both a conservative response and a postmodern attitude: Everything is caused by yourself, and you are fully responsible for all mistakes. Pressure has shifted from external to internal. In the words of Frankfurt School scholar Volkmar Sigusch, in such a situation, one cannot appear helpless. Whenever an issue arises, "super-modern people will think it's their own fault, rather than blaming the system."

然而,这原本应当有一个必要前提,那就是现代自我的成形——个体不仅能认识和感知到自身的独立性和完整性,并且能自由、自主地行动,基于此,他们才应当为自己行为的后果负责。现在的问题是:你没有得到这种权利,却要为并非全然是自己造成的结构性困境负责。

However, this should have had a necessary premise, which is the formation of modern self - individuals not only can recognize and perceive their independence and integrity, but also can act freely and autonomously. Based on this, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. The problem now is that you have not been given this right, but you are responsible for structural difficulties that are not entirely of your own making.

如果说这听起来抽象,那这么说吧:当下大学毕业生之所以找不到工作,难道是因为他们清高爱面子吗?如果只要拉下脸,摆地摊就能过上好日子,那现在的年轻人真不在乎。

If this sounds abstract, let me put it this way: Is the reason why current college graduates cannot find jobs because they are arrogant and care about their image? If all they had to do was swallow their pride and sell things on the street to live a good life, then young people today would not care.

别看现在社交媒体上许多博主纷纷晒出“脱下长衫后,孔乙己的生活有多快活”,但且不说这些灵活就业的收入不稳定(美国和日本早就证明,灵活就业导致年轻人的贫困率上升),真要做好,除了少数幸运儿,那绝对是开启hard模式。把这样艰难的转型说成只是“脱下长衫”那么轻巧,这本身就是脱离实际的口吻。

Despite the fact that many bloggers on social media have posted "How happy Kong Yiji's life is after taking off his long gown," it is not to be said that the income of flexible employment is unstable (the United States and Japan have long proved that flexible employment leads to an increase in poverty rate among young people). If done well, besides a few lucky ones, it is definitely a hard mode to start. To describe such a difficult transformation as simply "taking off the long robe" is already a departure from reality.

回头来说,鲁迅当年为什么要写孔乙己这样一个形象?仅仅是为了嘲讽读书人放不下架子吗?当然不是。

Looking back, why did Lu Xun create a character like Kong Yiji? Was it simply to mock educated people for not being humble? Of course not.

那一袭长衫,并不只是无谓、无用的“臭架子”,也是孔乙己的尊严。咸亨酒店里有身份的“长衫客”可以坐下来慢慢品酒,平头百姓(“短衣帮”)才站着喝,而孔乙己却是“站着喝酒而穿长衫的唯一的人”。这点明了他的尴尬处境:他是一个有着“士”的身份,但却不得不混迹于底层的人物。

The long robe is not just a useless "ostentation" but also the dignity of Kong Yiji. The "long robe guests" with status at the Xianheng Hotel can sit down and slowly drink their wine, while the common people ("short clothes gang") have to stand and drink. Kong Yiji, on the other hand, is the "only person standing and wearing a long robe while drinking". This points out his embarrassing situation: he has the status of a "scholar" but has to mix with the lower class people.

人们之所以嘲笑孔乙己,并不只是因为他的品行,而首先是这种身份上的格格不入。实际上,鲁迅交代得很清楚:尽管总因这样那样的缺点饱受讥讽,但孔乙己“品行却比别人都好,就是从不拖欠”。

The reason why people mock Kong Yiji is not only because of his character, but primarily because he does not fit in with his social status. In fact, as Lu Xun made clear, although he is often ridiculed for various shortcomings, Kong Yiji's "character is better than others', and he never owes anyone anything."

看客们之所以取笑他,没有说出来的一层意味是:“你自诩为知识分子,却与我们为伍。”我妈也有过类似的经历,当年下乡,有一句话让她久久不能释怀:“什么老三届初中生,肚子里有点墨水了又怎么样?还不是和我们一样下地干活。”

The unspoken implication behind the spectators' laughter was, "You claim to be an intellectual, yet you are associating with us." My mother had a similar experience when she went to the countryside. A remark left her unsettled for a long time: "So what if you're a third-year middle school student? You may know a little, but you still have to work in the fields like us."

问题就在这里:即便脱下长衫,也并不能让孔乙己免于被讥讽,因为哪怕和我们干一样的活,你仍然融入不进去——“和我们一样”证明你的落魄,当然值得奚落;但就算你真的想和我们一样,人人都清楚“你还是和我们不一样”。换句话说,“短衣帮”是一个孔乙己无法加入的俱乐部。

The problem lies in this: even if he takes off his long robe, it cannot protect Kong Yiji from being ridiculed. Because even if he does the same work as us, he still cannot blend in – "doing the same work as us" proves his destitution, which, of course, is worth mocking. But even if you really want to be like us, everyone knows "you are still not the same as us". In other words, the "Short Coat Gang" is a club that Kong Yiji cannot join.

长衫并不只是孔乙己的面子,也是他的安身立命的“士格”,而在丧失这一自尊之后,他在那些看客们眼里甚至连“人格”都得不到,一个酒店小伙计也都不尊重他,其生死无人在意,似乎他是一团空气,没有人把他当人看待。

The long gown was not just Kong Yiji's face, but also his "gentlemanly quality" that helped him find shelter and support. However, after losing this self-respect, he couldn't even earn a "personal quality" in the eyes of those onlookers. Even a hotel server did not respect him, and no one cared about his life or death. He seemed to be an invisible and insignificant human being.

乍看起来,鲁迅是在批判孔乙己,但在我看来,他真正批判的其实是那些看客们——对于孔乙己的处境,没有一个人能感同身受,只有隔膜、冷淡、嘲讽,包括小说中的“我”。在此,他以一种冷峻而克制的笔触,展现出一幅真实到可怕的散沙化社会景象:人与人之间缺乏联结,人们对他人的生死全然无动于衷。

At first glance, Lu Xun appears to be criticizing Kong Yiji, but in my view, what he is actually criticizing is the onlookers - no one could empathize with Kong Yiji's situation, only distance, indifference, and ridicule, including the "I" in the novel. Here, he uses a cold and restrained writing style to present a terrifyingly realistic scene of a fragmented society: a lack of connection between people, and individuals who are completely indifferent to the life and death of others.

诸如孔乙己、祥林嫂、阿Q这样的人物,千百年来在中国社会上一直都有,但从未有人写过这一群像,直到鲁迅将一束光投射到他们身上,他们的生活处境才第一次被“看见”了。鲁迅之所以是鲁迅,就在于他把国人长久以来视为理所当然的无意识存在,转化成了令人震惊的反思对象。

Characters like Kong Yiji, Xiang Linsao, and Ah Q have existed in Chinese society for thousands of years, but no one had really written about them until Lu Xun shed a light on their lives. It was only then that their living conditions were "seen." What made Lu Xun truly remarkable was how he transformed the unconscious existence that the Chinese people had long taken for granted into a shocking object of reflection.

这是鲁迅作品中反复出现的主题。在著名的“幻灯片事件”后,鲁迅就意识到,改造中国社会的首要前提,就是批判那些对同胞遭遇麻木不仁的“看客”,唤起人们的共情,因为这种共情才是产生联结、促成行动的基础。

This is a theme that repeatedly appears in Lu Xun's works. After the famous "Lantern Slide Incident," Lu Xun realized that the foremost prerequisite for transforming Chinese society is to criticize those "onlookers" who are numb to their fellow countrymen's suffering and to awaken people's empathy, because this kind of empathy is the basis for creating connections and promoting actions.

1926年,在《纪念刘和珍君》一文中,他沉痛地说:

In 1926, in the article "In Memory of Mr. Liu Hezhen," he sorrowfully stated:

有限的几个生命,在中国是不算什么的,至多,不过供无恶意的闲人以饭后的谈资,或者给有恶意的闲人做“流言”的种子。

A limited number of lives in China are insignificant, at most serving as fodder for idle people to chat about after dinner or enabling malicious idle people to spread rumors.

对鲁迅来说,这是一种莫大的悲哀:且不说尊严,人的存在本身都“不算什么”了,锥心泣血的痛苦,对看客们而言不过是谈资。钱理群在《游戏国里的看客》洞悉了鲁迅何以对此耿耿于怀:

For Lu Xun, this was a great tragedy: not to mention dignity, human existence itself was "worth nothing," and the heart-wrenching pain was just a topic of conversation for onlookers. Qian Liqun insightfully understood why Lu Xun was so concerned about this in "Spectators in the Game Country."

整个中国就是一个“大游戏场,大剧场”,一切真实的思想与话语一旦落入其中,就都变成了供看客鉴赏的“表演”。鲁迅在他的小说中反复描写的“看客”现象,就是一种全民族的“演戏”与“看戏”。

The entire China is like a "big playground, big theater", where all true thoughts and talks once they fall into it, become "performances" for the audience's appreciation. The phenomenon of the "audience" that Lu Xun repeatedly depicted in his novels is a national "acting" and "watching" of the play.

这样的全民表演,是一种极其可怕的消解力量:下层人民(祥林嫂、孔乙己们)真实的痛苦,有理想、有追求的改革者、精神界战士(夏瑜们)真诚的努力与崇高的牺牲,都在“被看”的过程中,变成哈哈一笑。

This kind of nationwide performance is an extremely terrifying force of disintegration: the real pain of the lower-class people (such as Xiang Lin Sao and Kong Yiji), the sincere efforts and noble sacrifices of reformers and spiritual warriors (such as Xia Yu), who have ideals and pursuits, all become a laughing stock in the process of being "watched."

当然,鲁迅所谋求的并不只是让这些小人物博取廉价的同情,至少他在对他们近乎悲悯的共情之下,对他们身上的弱点、缺陷也从不有所隐讳。这就是鲁迅:他既呈现真实的国民性,但又并不因此而拒绝给予同情。他们都是人。

Of course, what Lu Xun sought was not just to have these small characters win cheap sympathy. At least, he never concealed their weaknesses and flaws in his almost sympathetic empathy for them. That's Lu Xun: he presents the real national character, but he does not refuse to give sympathy as a result. They are all human beings.

然而,近些年来,对鲁迅笔下人物的理解却带上了一种迥然不同的意味,所谓“可怜之人必有可恨之处”,原本是对阿Q这种人物既有共情又具批判的审视,但现在这句话的意思通常都侧重在“可恨”上——“别看那人很可怜,其实必有可恨之处”,这就阻止了对他人的共情,倒是更接近于“受害者有罪论”了。

However, in recent years, the understanding of the characters in Lu Xun's works has taken on a markedly different meaning. The so-called "a pitiful person must have something hateful about them" originally referred to the character of Ah Q, which involved empathy and criticism. But now, this phrase is usually interpreted as focusing on "hatefulness" - "Although that person appears pitiful, there must be something hateful about them." This inhibits empathy towards others and is closer to the idea of "the victim is to blame."

有朋友和我说,他最反感的一句话,就是“可怜之人必有可恨之处”,因为他一位中学老师就经常把这句话挂在嘴边,用以为自己拒绝同情他人辩护。这背后隐含着一种绝对化的道德观:“只有毫无可恨之处的人,才值得同情。”然而,且不说这样的人未必存在,这也意味着对“同情”设定了极高的门槛,完全违背了鲁迅的本意。

A friend told me that the sentence he most detests is "A pitiable person must have some fault," because one of his high school teachers often used this sentence to refuse to defend others with sympathy. There is an absolute moral view behind this: "Only those without any fault are worthy of sympathy." However, not to mention that such people may not exist, it also means setting a very high threshold for "sympathy," which completely contradicts Lu Xun's original intention.

同样的,祥林嫂原本是一个遭际悲惨的女性,周围人对她只有肤浅的关心而谈不上有什么深切的同情,但到现在,“祥林嫂”通常被用来挖苦那些啰嗦哀怨的人物,倒不如说更让人敬而远之。

Similarly, Xiang Lin Sao was originally a woman who suffered a tragic fate. People around her only cared superficially for her and could not sympathize deeply. But now, "Xiang Lin Sao" is usually used to mock those who are garrulous and complaining, rather than causing people to feel respectful and distant.

至于《药》里的“人血馒头”,本来是血淋淋地表现烈士的流血牺牲都无法触动愚昧的国民,然而在这些年的舆论场上,这个词常常倒是被用以阻止你深入探究。一有什么惨烈的公共事件发生,如果你发声关注,就可能被扣上这么一顶帽子,仿佛只有你沉默不语,让这事就这么过去,才算是对死者及其家人的尊重。

As for the "human blood buns" in the book "Medicine", it originally portrayed the martyrs' sacrifice in a bloody way, which failed to touch the ignorant nationals. However, in recent years, this term has often been used to obstruct further investigation. Whenever a brutal public incident occurs, if you speak out and pay attention, you may be labeled with this hat, as if only keeping silent and letting the matter pass is considered respect for the deceased and their families.

鲁迅已遭到背叛。像这样的种种误读,意味着人们和鲁迅之间已产生了距离,一道深不见底的鸿沟横亘其间。虽然鲁迅的经典看似仍是鲜活的,但它已得到重新阐释,以适应全新的社会需要。

Lu Xun has already been betrayed. Various misunderstandings like this indicate that a distance has arisen between the people and Lu Xun, with a bottomless chasm separating them. Although Lu Xun's classics may appear to be still alive, they have been reinterpreted to meet the needs of a completely new society.

从某种意义上说,鲁迅作品已经获得了“经”的地位,而任何一个社会的发展,也确实需要对经典的全新的阐释来“适今”,并在现实的创造性实践中深化理解。不过,这种与时俱进不应该是拿鲁迅来为现实辩护,而应当是通过对鲁迅的重新理解来开辟新的可能。

In a sense, Lu Xun's works have gained a "canonical" status, and any development of society indeed requires a new interpretation of classics in order to "suit the present" and deepen understanding in creative practicality. However, this progress should not be used to defend reality by relying on Lu Xun, but rather by opening up new possibilities through reinterpreting his works.

以中国思潮更新迭代的速度之快,不同世代的人有不同理解也不算意料之外,甚至究竟有没有鲁迅的“本意”也众说纷纭,然而,如果当代对鲁迅的解读竟然走向了他曾经批判的那一面,那这种误读,难道不是悲哀?

With the rapid update of Chinese ideological trends, it is not surprising that different generations have different interpretations. There is even a lot of debate about whether there is an "original intent" of Lu Xun. However, if contemporary interpretations of Lu Xun actually end up on the side he once criticized, is this misunderstanding not a tragedy?

Made with Super