Translation: 南音:香港史話 – 東方紅/給九七代 黑鳥

原文:

寒風陣陣
星月無光
正好怡和洋行慶祝佢百五周年
煙火勁放太平山
嗰個麥士德臣
就系當年嘅大班
見佢聲聲似狼
響處賣其鴉片
搞到清朝禍曬
好似小二過年

剩得個林則徐
同佢練哪
嗰次虎門之地燒大煙
你睇操場嗰年紅火艷
嗰啲道友、道姑也無言

耳畔聽得炮聲人頭落
只見大清割地將條約簽
割咗香港九龍,強借新界咯
普羅大眾恨綿綿
以後華人與狗一樣賤
佢哋錢財刮盡,樂趣無邊
奴化教育,真陰毒
我哋義憤填胸,向各位陳詞

講番清朝玩完,因革命啊
點知軍閥割據亂江山
大好家園,遭焚毀咯
蟻民避亂,恨難填
以為香港唔會受戰火亂
點知嘎頭來犯,我哋冇窿圈
三餐不繼,炊糧斷
夫亡子散,你話有誰憐?

輾轉三年八個月
日落途窮嘎仔系緊先
以為香港會有新生活
點知鬼佬晤走在眼前

大英帝國好唔掂
惟有賴死唔走刮多啲
嗰陣國內革命,形勢勁
貪官污吏,諗住玩完
道光當年曾割地呀
嗰啲富豪新貴夾帶南遷
紅旗插滿地呀
盈屍遍野,又三年

文革十年,喇喇亂呀
游水落哩,捱住先
今日香港繁榮,得佢哋呀
太平山下,慶團圓
卒之只有自由,冇民主
名牌靚衫,呃通天
點知租約就來期呀滿咯
任得你兩邊點樣來點啊
我哋都系系埋一條船

譯文:

The Folks Telling the History of Hong Kong

Cold wind blowing and no light from the moon and stars, just the Jardine celebrated the 150th anniversary of establishment. Fireworks were vigorously let off under the Victoria Peak, at the moment James Matheson was a very parvenu. His words were so cruel like wolf howling for opium selling, causing the Qing to collapse, to be spending the New Year like a young servant.

Here was only Lin Zexu to fight against the James’s, in Humen the hazardous destroyed. Saw the parade ground blazing big fire, drugsters and drugstresses with no whisper. Huge sound of cannon firing near ears, chopped heads were on the ground, then the great Qing cut the lands and had the treaty signed. Hongkong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories were all grabbed that the ordinary grinded teeth in anger.

Later on were Chinese living as pariahs like dogs, while the gweilos exhaustedly extorted capital from the colonised with endless laugh. So insidious the enslaved education was pushed that we are angry in heart and want to tell this story to all of you.

It is said the end of the Qing resulted from the Revolution, however the warlords’ set up a separated plain and devastated the country. Lovely family homes were burned and destroyed that brought the ant-like lowers fled with uncompensated fury.

Thinking that Hongkong would not be affected by the chaos, and yet the Kartaus (Japs) invaded the land so no cave to hide. Meals were not sustained because of no eatable offered, while husbands and sons were dead and lost that no one would sympathise.

Three years and eight months later set the Sun that the Kartaus ended the rule. Thinking of a new life in Hongkong but the hateable gweilos remained and did not go. Because of the falling of the Empire, the gweilos tended to stay for more grabbing. At the time China was in a high-blowing turmoil of civil war with corruption where no future for the people. Thanks to the Daoguang ceding the land, the rich and aristocrats brought all properties to the south. During the three years the red flags were raised on the plain where bodies were crammed.

The ten-year Cultural Revolution was like chaos, while many escaped from the mainland by swimming through the sea for the harbour. Thanks to them Hongkong is prosperous today and families are altogether celebrating under the Peak.

Here the life seems free, but no democracy. The fancy clothes with famous brands deceived the eyes. However, the expiry of the lease is coming.

Whatever political games and tricks played by the two, we are all living in the single little boat.

(trans. by levon kwok 8/2016)

Yu’s “Introversive Characteristic” of Chinese Culture

The comparison or/and distinction between the different philosophical and cultural logics of the East and the West is generally to be focused in academic circles around the world because through this a practical approach for researchers and academicians in the West and the East to achieving the mutual understanding of the both sides’ historical backgrounds, cultural elements and developing tendencies would be worked out. The ones working in this research field have presented lots of opinions and theoretical thinking on analyzing and comparing the differences between Western and Eastern/Chinese cultures[1]. Yu Ying Shih (Yu Yingshi余英時) here demonstrates his perspective on the characteristic of Chinese traditional culture and the comparison of the differences of the cultural-philosophical logic between the West and China:

“We can say that Chinese culture has a characteristic of ‘introversion (內傾)’ that it constructs a comparative with the ‘extroversive (外傾)’ characteristic of the culture of the West. There is an inner force within the introversive culture, but the force is hard to be discovered from the outside world (e.g. the reality of human life). The inner force mainly reflects the spirits of Confucianism – ‘relying upon oneself (求諸己)’; ‘exhausting the obligation of oneself (盡其在我)’ – and of Daoism – ‘self-sufficiency (自足)’, as well as of Buddhism – ‘depending on oneself, not others (依自不依他)’, which strengthen the influential power of the force. Between the thinking logics of the ‘introversion’ and the ‘extroversion’, Chinese people would generally tend to choose the first one, not the second. The tendency towards the introversion (of Chinese people) has actually appeared as some of mistimed defects in the progression of the modernization (of China). However, the tendency brought by the inner force is also the basis of Chinese culture facilitating the thousands-year continuous development of the Chinese heritage in human history. ‘Daxue(大學)’ says: ‘The point where to rest being known, the object of pursuit is then determined; and, that being determined, a calm unperturbedness may be attained to. To that calmness there will succeed a tranquil repose. In that repose there may be careful deliberation, and that deliberation will be followed by the attainment of the desired end (translated by James Legge; 知止而后有定,定而后能靜,靜而后能安,安而后能慮,慮而后能得).’ This content can generally reflect there is a characteristic of the introversive culture of the Chinese. Here, ‘zhi (rest)’, ‘ding (determined)’, ‘jing (calm)’, and ‘an (reposed)’ are all indicating the spiritual conditions of an individual, suitable to be used to describe the general representation of the characteristic of Chinese culture.” [2]

In the above paragraph, Yu presents a comparative opinion about the distinction between the “introversive” and “extroversive” characteristics of the spirits of Western and Chinese cultures. According to Yu’s, there is an “introversive” characteristic in the nature of Chinese culture. The point is that the form of the characteristic has close relationship with the three main ancient philosophical thinkings in China: Confucianism (儒), Daoism (道) and Buddhism (佛;釋) (known as “Three Teachings” 三教 Sanjiao) which are the important props supporting and constructing a cultural consciousness of Chinese society. The theoretical elements of the three ancient thoughts profoundly affect the national characters of Chinese people and of the people living in the Chinese cultural sphere (中華文化圈)[3] (including Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, which are to be seen as the countries in the Chinese-character-using circle of East Asia). The so-called “introversive characteristic” of the Chinese means that the people generally pay initial attention to achieving the human purposes of inner spiritual perfection and intellectual refinement in life. For example, when living conditions in different regions of the world are changing continuously, people could have different attitudes to facing and encountering the potential challenge brought by the changing that actually reflect the different characters, thinking logics and characteristics of the people. That is to say, the attitudes reflect the different nationalities of the people around the world. The “introversive characteristic” of Chinese society and culture is mirrored in the tendency of Chinese people to tackling the problems, difficulties and challenges from the external world: the Chinese generally tend to find out the “solution” from their personal ability and spiritual improvement and adjust themselves’ nonmaterial condition to the changing situation of the living world, not to ask or explore the possible unreasonable factor(s) related to the forming of the changings in their lives (from the outside world). This kind of attitude kept by Chinese people reflects an “introversive characteristic” of Chinese traditional culture. Also, Yu presents the core ideas of the thoughts of the “Three Teachings” to justify his argument on arguing the characteristic of Chinese culture that the “introversive characteristic” of the Chinese (or Eastern) cultural intension is different from the West’s counterpart because the developing of Western culture and civilization has the so-called “extroversive characteristic”: Westerners get used to find out the “solution” for difficult life from the external world, not from their spiritual mind. This judgment can be evidenced by the modern development of global capitalist commercialism and imperialism as well as colonialism in the history of human civilization.

(See: The Theory and Practice of Anti-Globalization Movement: Case Studies of the Independent Media in the Chinese Societies – Hong Kong and Taiwan. Bonn: Bonn University. 2014)

[1] “What is typically Western and what is typically Eastern? …F. S. C. Northrop has advanced the following view. The distinctive characteristics of the West are (1) the primacy of the conceptual over the non-conceptual as coupled with the application of the postulational method, and (2) the linear, teleological conception of time and history that is presumed to be ineluctably and exclusively tied up with the progress of human history. Irrational numbers, the Copernican Revolution, Plato’s intelligible world and the transcendent God of Christianity are apt examples illustrating the application of the postulational method…It is assumed that the combination of (1) and (2) accounts for the progress of civilization including the emergence of modern science and technology in the West. By contrast, the traditional culture of the Orient is characterized by (1) the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, and (2) the (better, a) cyclical conception of time.” See: Lee, Kwang-sae (2006). East And West: Fusion of Horizons. USA: Homa & Sekey. pp. 489-490.

[2] See: Yu, Ying Shih (1999). The Modern Interpretation of Chinese Thought Tradition. Taipei: Linking. pp. 20-21.

[3] “Before and after World War II, Japanese historians willingly accepted the idea of a self-developed East Asia and included both China and Japan into this East Asian world. For example, Nishijima Sadao believed that this ‘East Asian world’ was a self-insulated cultural sphere. More precisely, this East Asian world circled China and included Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and the regions between the Mongolian and the Himalaya plateau. But the borders of the historical world were fluid and unfixed. Some areas, such as the Himalaya plateau, certain regions in central Asia, and regions in Southeast Asia, belonged to a different historical world because they lacked the characteristics of the East Asian world. These characteristics included Chinese character-based culture, Confucianism, legal and decree system, and Buddhism.” See: Fuchs, Eckhardt; Stuchtey, Benedikt (2002). Across cultural borders: historiography in global perspective. USA: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 322.

The Basic Logic of Western Scientism

The “vicissitude” is of the fundamental existent form of all beings. This point of view contributed by Daoism as one of the Chinese traditional thoughts is totally different from the perspective of Western civilization on understanding and interpreting the present situation and existing condition of the whole creation, of the Nature. In previous chapters, we have analyzed what the spirit of Western scientific civilization is related to. The embodiment of the spirit of Western scientism could follow this approach: firstly, we undertake the work of constructing a “system” of human knowledge with discovering the “rule” of the changing of existence. Then, trying to justify the “rule of existence” by doing various experiments and repeated calculations with numbers are the next steps for evidencing the existence of the “rule”. Through the two procedures, the “rule” of the changing beings is to be proved and named with a “title” by researchers. Finally, the “rule” is recognized by an authority that the “scientific findings” would be allowed to be a part of human knowledge. In the process of categorizing (“formatting”/“partitioning”) the existing beings in the mechanistic system of human knowledge, the nature of the vicissitude of the whole creation is flattened and restricted in a particular artificial understanding scope narrower than the horizon of the “no-desire”. We can discover that the Western thinking, in a certain degree, tries to simplify or distort the original essence and the reality of the existence of all beings for suiting the “others” to humankind’s limited intellect for furthering the dominant control over creatures. Here, a clear perspective of “anthropocentrism” within the scientism of Western civilization is discovered.

Nowadays, the so-called “scientific knowledge” is unable to give a satisfied answer to explain why the Earth does exist. The existence and the fundamental principle of the changing of the Nature told by the thinking of Western scientism are so hard to be seen as sufficient despite many “significant theories based on ‘scientific assumptions and speculations’” have been offered. This truth reflects a dilemma of Western scientism: we are able to discover the surface appearance and some smattering principles of the vicissitude of beings through applying scientific methodologies and mathematical tools, but it is far from accessing to the fundamental and the changing essence of all existences – the “Dao” because humanity, in the thinking of Western scientific logic, gets used to see themselves as an absolute cognitive subject higher than the Nature and other creatures, forgetting that there is an interdependent relationship between humankind and all beings in living reality. According to the alienated logic, humans should have a dominative status and the power (derived from the God) to redefine the role of the Nature in fulfilling the demand of human society. The so-called “anthropocentrism” is reflected: the logic allows human beings to develop their interest realm “reasonably” and “legally” without considering the original of the lifespan of the Nature. The “anthropocentrism”, as an ideology in fact, is the only foundation of the present imbalanced dysfunctional societal situation of human civilization, helping the rise of capitalism based on human greed from the past to now.

(See: The Theory and Practice of Anti-Globalization Movement: Case Studies of the Independent Media in the Chinese Societies – Hong Kong and Taiwan. Bonn: Bonn University. 2014)

Briefing the Progression of the Development of Human Civilisation

BY ANALYZING THE PROGRESSION of the development of human history, we understand that there are periods of the civilization of humanity that had been experienced by the past generations. The periods are the age of tribalism (the ex-social period of human life with the basic form of family), the age of feudalism (the classified social form with the domination of king and aristocracy) and the age of modernization (the human civilization brought by the Industrial Revolution and global capitalism). Today, we are living in the period of the so-called “post-modernization” of human civilization. The main character of this period reflects the termination of the positive running of modernization – the generalization of political right with global democratization and the prosperity of the development of world economy and the rise of the negativeness of the civilized situation of human society – the “erosion” on political power practiced by global capitalists and the polarization of human inequality and race/economic class conflict. Globalization, as a widespread phenomenon in the “post-modernization” of human civilization, is understood in a logical context of the historical development of human society in which the positive and the negative appear at the same time. The logic of the “positive-negative-appearance” of globalization not only causes the current effects of economic globalization (or the so-called “hijacked globalization”), but facilitates the diversification, intercommunication and integration of different nations, beliefs, customs and lifestyles in the world society.

On the other hand, the theory and practice of anti-globalization movement reflects such logical developing context like globalization. Anti-globalization movement is globalizing, opposing the violation of human right caused by the global cooperation of world political and economic powers; the movement, meanwhile, is also localizing, encouraging social groups’ connection and promoting a localized form of social movement in the popular development of regional subversive culture as well as carrying out its realistic influence in local/global circumstance. The developing of the “positive-negative-appearance” not only hints the typical thinking logic of humanity, such as the appliance of dualistic confrontation – civil/rude; democratic/autocratic; liberal/authoritarian; East/West; South/North; Left/Right; rich/poor; developed/developing; mightiness/weakness; light/dark; good/evil invalid, but also opens up a new approach to understand the present situation and connotation of human civilization: we are living in the “same place of the world”. In the “same place”, the “civil” does rude behaviours and the “rude” embodies the spirit of civilness; “democracy” is not really democratic, and “autocracy” preserves a kind of enlightenment. The typical thinking logic of human society – the use of dualistic confrontation has been a problematic for understanding the present situation of the human realm, misleading us to realize the reality of the civilized modernity.[1]

Globalization and its effects tell that the political attempt to carry out separation or disintegration of the world society is of no avail. Instead of the attempt, we must accept the present of the whole human society having the characteristics of interconnecting and interlacing of people’s activity. As a part of globalization, anti-globalization movement itself also reflects such characteristics – world citizens are able to realize (relative) free communication and connection with each other for global social movement through the use of the Internet. The rise of grass-root social movement around the world has its particular factor. The main factor of the rise is about an old legend: from the beginning of human history, the acts of the unjust exploitation and conquest of the Nature done by political power which had violated people’s lives are never ended. Although human society as a whole has been gradually “civilized” in a historical process, the unjusts are exercised (by power with different political forms) through the practices of military might and the execution of law. Politics, as a hierarchical production for exercising the coercive, is of the “leader” of controlling the distribution of useful substance, having an authoritative horizon on directing people how to consider the existence of the Nature. Human civilization is a “jacket”, and the rude essence of politics is never changed. Therefore, the history of human beings is written by series of socio-political movements carried out by common people for opposing and subverting the domination and exploitation of political powers.

(See: The Theory and Practice of Anti-Globalization Movement: Case Studies of the Independent Media in the Chinese Societies – Hong Kong and Taiwan. Bonn: Bonn University. 2014)

[1] For example, the concept of so-called “mightiness” is vague. It must be understood in a fixed comparative context and the factual of it would be shifted when it is placed in another understanding context. Also, the construction of the “mightiness” has its particular social conditions to be embodied. People get used to emphasize the importance of being a “mighty” but at the same time sink into the dilemma of the logic of the dualistic confrontation. In fact, the “mightiness” cannot exist alone. It needs the “weakness” to reflect its existence. The dualistic logic ignores the truth that we all live in a whole human society and depend on each other for our lives. The logic deters us from understanding the real situation of the development of the world society and covers up the attempt of political power to use the logic to direct the developing tendency of human civilization.

Definition of Independent Media

What is the so-called “independent media” or “alternative media”[1]? What are the main differences between independent media and mainstream media (or called mass media)?

…‘independent media’, in this discussing context, is a kind of media independent from the influence of all governments, political parties and business corporations on financial and editorial issues, having a non-commercial form of the kind.[2]

Medium (or media), such as radio, television, newspaper, magazine and also internet media, is a kind of communication implement which helps for delivering information to people. Through the use of media, people can achieve new information and knowledge and keep in touch with the changing of society. Generally speaking, media refers to the so-called “mass media” or “mainstream media” in modern society. The main contents delivered by such media could be advertisements, news reports, entertainment programmes and so on. Nowadays, the majority of media are mostly operated by global commercial corporations. Among them, some could have specific political stance on news reporting and programme broadcasting because they are directly sponsored by governmental foundations or institutions having particular political preference and background[3], besides relying on the profit from advertisement for media operation.

“Independent media” means that there is a kind of media which is not operated by any company or corporation for private interest, but run by people for people themselves. Also, independent media are free of being influenced by the developing tendency of business market and mass taste. Ip Iam Chong (Ye Yincong葉蔭聰), one of the founders of the “Inmediahk.net”[4] who is Teaching Fellow of the Department of Cultural Studies at Lingnan University, Hong Kong, argues that the most significant characteristic of the operation of independent media is a non-commercial form of media practice, resisting any economic or political influence on the information contents delivering and organizational structure of the media.

(See: The Theory and Practice of Anti-Globalization Movement: Case Studies of the Independent Media in the Chinese Societies – Hong Kong and Taiwan. Bonn: Bonn University. 2014)

[1] Generally speaking, independent media or alternative media is the allied media organizations for fighting against the monopolization of media space done by mainstream media bosses. For alternative media, Christopher Frank Atton, Professor of Media and Culture in the School of Arts and Creative Industries at Edinburgh Napier University, argues that: “Chris Atton uses the term ‘alternative media’ to mean ‘a range of media projects, interventions and networks that work against, or seek to develop different forms of, the dominant, expected (and broadly accepted) ways of “doing” media’ (2004: ix). This is a useful definition as it includes projects outside a narrow definition of ‘media’, and allows space for consideration of, for instance, broader activities such as the open-source and anti-copyright movements that are aligned with many alternative media projects. Atton believes that alternative media must encompass all cultural forms of independent production and should display the following characteristics (Atton 2002b: 27): radical content, be it political or cultural; strong aesthetic form; employ ‘reproductive innovations/adaptations’ (ibid) taking full advantage of the available and cutting-edge technology; alternative means of distribution and anti-copyright ethos; transformation of social roles and relations into collective organizations and de-professionalization and; transformation of communications processes – ‘horizontal linkages’ (ibid).” See: Coyer, Kate, Dowmunt, Tony, Fountain, Alan (2007). The Alternative Media Handbook. Oxford: Roudledge. p. 3.

[2] See: Ip, Iam-Chong (葉蔭聰) (2009). New Political Power: The Development of Hong Kong’s Independent Media (新政治力量:香港獨立媒體的發展). Mass Communication Research, 99, p. 223.

[3] To justify this statement, we need to analyze how mainstream media report the news related to social movement. For example, please see the BBC News “Occupy protests disrupt ports across US West Coast” (Retrieved December 13, 2011, from the BBC News website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16152553). We discover that the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC is the national media funded by British government) has a specific stance or judgment on the Occupy Wall Street movement. The report does not mention the history or the developing background of the movement. We, through reading the report, are unable to catch the whole picture of the movement because it just concentrates on emphasizing the negative effect of the movement on society. It shows the fact that mainstream media could do their injustice or incomplete reports based on their “interpretation” and “need”.

This is another report for the social movement in China: “Deal in China rebel village Wukan welcomed” (Retrieved December 22, 2011, from the BBC News website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16297463). From this report, we can fully catch the background, progress and other related details of the movement. It is apparent that the media has its attempt to affect the public opinion on the two reported social movements. By this reporting manipulation, the mass would be trended to be strengthened the impression that “Chinese society really has its ‘problem’ that is more serious than the U.S.’s”. The main point is the two movements have been reported unequally by the media just because they broke out in different countries. This discriminative tactic shows that the media has its political stance. Therefore, independent media, which are established based on the demand for the “real fact” and alternative viewpoints for common people, open up an alternative approach to reporting and discussing social issues. In addition, the media, as a communicating platform with the website-form, generally has the comment-posting function which offers an approach for people to giving their comments and opinions related to various issues and movements for sharing the spirit of solidarity and discussing the “fact” in today’s social circumstance. By this reason, independent media plays its significant role in facilitating the positive development of modern society.

[4] “Inmediahk.net” (香港獨立媒體網, http://www.inmediahk.net/) has been a representative independent media in Hong Kong since 2004. According to the page “About” on the media website: “The main purposes of the media are to support the development of Hong Kong democratic and social movements, to establish a ‘public space’ which is not controlled by governments, corporations and political parties, to organize citizens for concerning and reflecting on social, political and cultural issues collectively, to open up a people’s horizon on humanistic knowledge, deep thinking and diversified information understanding, to facilitate the dialogue between the Cross-Strait and international communities, to construct a radical approach to social progressive movement. …For the purpose of embodying the independent spirit outside the influence of governments, enterprises and political parties, we need supports from the readers (users) of the Inmediahk.net; the independent media does not accept any financial support from bussinesses or political parties. The financial resources of the Inmediahk.net are all from public donation and voluntaries as well as social groups. If there is no support from the readers, the independent media would not be run enduringly.” Retrieved November 1, 2011, from the Inmediahk.net website: http://www.inmediahk.net/about

The World Molded by Globalisation

IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, the contemporary world has been passing through a vicissitudinous transitional process. It is said that there is an advanced development of so-called “civilization” of human society in the modern. However, socio-political conflicts and economic uncertainties brought by the activities of humankind are present because of the complex development of the politics of global powers, containing the imbalance distribution of resources causing extreme disparity between the rich and the poor and the deterioration of people’s living quality. Private ownership, or “property”, is an important concept embedded in the theory of capitalism, which helps people to justify the endless accumulation of wealth. The centralization of power of economy in modern society is connected with the professionalization of the operation of financial institutions, the development of technology and the rises of consumerism as well as instrumental rationalism. The populations of the rich and the poor are both increasing simultaneously. Various social problems are emerging because of the rise of globalization, collectively constructing a big picture of the current turbulent situation of human society as a whole.

The development of human society is of a process of chasing the improvement of life quality and of the attempt to embody the spirit of “civilization” of people. It starts from the move of the embodiment of local custom and tradition based on particular historical cultural foundation. Then, relative regulation(s) and law(s) originated from the embodiment are to be made and exercised. In the process of exercising the civilized, some problems connected with the practice would be appeared anticipated. After that, we could have intention to do adjustment for tackling the inherited problems and try another possible arrangement for the civilized arrangement (again and again). The “development” is still ongoing and never ended. We believe that human beings are composing their histories and running on the civilizing road by this approach.

Our living world is of an unceasing change. Meanwhile, the change is also going opposed to our faith in the bettering of the nature of human society in the future.

Globalization is a wide-spreading modern phenomenon reflected in the aspects of politics, economy, social situation and cultural context. It is generally to be seen as a social developing process having the characteristics of “united-as-one” and “strengthening the effect of diversification”. The two characteristics collectively constitute the core essence, effect and influence of globalization. We are all living under the changing climate of globalization that our way of life is to be altered and remolded everyday.

(See: The Theory and Practice of Anti-Globalization Movement: Case Studies of the Independent Media in the Chinese Societies – Hong Kong and Taiwan. Bonn: Bonn University. 2014)

無政府與俯視觀點

「為何在今時今日這個時空背景底下談『無政府』?」筆者必須先對於這個問題作出說明。如果考察人類社會的歷史發展,我們可以發現記載有關無政府的思想、主義及運動的史料似乎少之又少。若分開兩個層面無政府的歷史事件以及無政府主義者的著作來作理解的話,二十世紀三十年代初西班牙無政府運動的興衰係現代歐洲歷史發展當中本質鮮明、有關無政府主義政治運動的歷史個案1。而以無政府主義者(無論是「自稱」或「被認定為」)及其主張作為分析主軸的話,自十九世紀始則有蒲魯東(Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)對所有權(Property)的批判、巴枯寧(Michael Bakunin)及克魯泡特金(Peter Kropotkin)的無政府主義政治社會思想理論等。而當代無政府主義健將則有美國異議學者暨語言學家喬姆斯基(Noam Chomsky2

但是,當「無政府」作為一種理念或狀態描述,被普遍認定為混亂、無秩序的同義詞;當無政府運動被看作是一種龐克(Punk)文化或年輕人的叛逆、示威、搞亂破壞的藉口;當無政府主義被廣泛認定為「沒有價值」或脫離任何社會現實脈絡、不需再次被提出或反省的思想產物,而這些判斷已成為主流聲音、代表著一個「真確的事實」時,為什麼我們還要談論、研究無政府?

顯然,上述有關對於無政府理念、主張及其運動意涵的各種認定,是成見。筆者在此提供兩個論理依據說明為何我們有必要把無政府看作一個整全的研究議題來討論。這些論理依據使無政府成為在今時今日的時空條件下值得去談論的基礎和前提。

無政府(無論作為一種意識型態、一個純粹的抽象概念或一種人類具體生活狀態的指涉)似乎離我們極之遙遠。不管是我們賦予它何種意義(包括正面意義就像每一位無政府主義者所宣稱,作為一種理想的生活狀態或社會結構,沒有「政府」管治的生活群集體是所有人類群居形式中最自由、最為可取的文明架構;和負面意義無政府就是無秩序、天下大亂、雜亂無章的代名詞),無政府都像是一個「虛幻的國度」,只能存在於自我意識的想像當中。作為一種「理想社會」的實踐原則,無政府卻永遠無法「實現」我們的世界已沒有一個地方、一個人類社群,其係沒有被包含在某政治實體的統治之中。

現在,筆者欲提出一項事實:每一個人的生活內涵都正在與無政府產生關聯。此事實的存在與前段的描述並不互斥,兩者可同時並存。所謂「每一個人的生活內涵都在與無政府產生關聯」意味著每一個人的生活都在沒有「政府」的指導和操控之下進行和發展著

「無人不在任何一個政府底下被統治著」此一主流立場正是十分典型的「俯視觀點3。當政治主權擁有其「合法性」4它依據普遍民眾對政府統治權力的承認和默許、軍隊和警政機關的設立和服從、國家之中法律之絕對性沒有任何人能證成自身無被納入政府的管治。當政府透過其立法機關制定一套又一套的法規要求(強迫)人民加以承認和遵守時,沒有人能夠拒絕。

「合法」是國家政府唯一需要去負責的事體。除非「不」合法,否則政府可以對被統治的人民做「任何事情」民意輿論及大眾媒體雖能給予意見(批判)或作有限度的監察,但無權干涉政府施政。在此前提下,「每一個人的生活內涵都在與無政府產生關聯」究竟能夠如何被理解?這個命題的意義在哪裡?

假設,我們不以俯視觀點(由統治者、國王、君主、政府元首及擁有龐大財富的資本家所倡導)出發來架構我們對現實世界的視野和認知,重新以自身的理解立場、思考方式及生存狀態來考察那真實的生活情景,以下問題隨即浮現:我們跟政府之間的關係到底是什麼?在日常生活當中,我們什麼時候與那個「政府」產生瓜葛?主流媒體(網路、電視、電台、報紙、雜誌等)每日每月都在提醒著新鮮的政治(與政府運作及政客動態有關的)新聞,那些內容都在暗(明)示著政府是存在著的。政壇每天都有嶄新的變化,這些都將可能改變我們的生活內涵。可是,真正對我們的精神、意志或良知判斷有直接不可抗拒之影響力的政治事件究竟有多少?

例如,政府的質性產生變化無論由哪一元首或政黨來主導著變化的進程,又或者由一種政體過渡至另一種政體我們還是得「過活」每分每秒地對生活做合乎自身意志的決定。這是一項重要的前提,支撐著我們對任何事體的承認、否認或存而不論。簡言之,我們的生活係由我們所選擇的形式來進行。

這並不是要否定政府的存在性,或企圖論證政治事件無法影響我們的生活內涵。提出以上論點的目的在於:提醒所謂政府或政治事件的存在性,本質上無法主宰我們的人格、良知判斷和發展方向5。因為,社會個體總是以自身的意志來決定和衡量是非對錯,每一個人獨特而迴異的生活風格依此形成。這此前提下,只有統治者會認為自己擁有一個國家、一個政府和所有的人民,並時常透過各種管道宣稱這是無法推翻的事實,使人們漸漸「相信」這是真確無誤的真理。可是,我們不是那唯一的統治者,我們是人。我們抱有自身的生活世界,有關這世界的一切都是從自身的觀點出發去型塑,而不(總)是以統治者的論述立基。當「政府」試圖以自身的合法性來干涉民眾的生活、將其可能有問題的施政合理化的同時,我們常常看到人民以抗爭和拒絕作回應拒絕自身生活方式受到任何外力(尤其是政治力)的滋擾或支配。在此事例中,我們能夠認識到一個事實:當我們依自身意志親手建立的生活狀態被政治強制改變時,我們確實抱有一種願不願意的具體立場。這意味著在日常生活的境況中,決定著我們生活的人是我們自己,而不是「政府」。

相較之下,國家政府及其權力遠離於民眾6,而現實生活卻在每天不斷地上演著。所以,我們係生活在沒有政府的干涉和影響的狀態下,只是忘卻或根本不相信這是事實。這個論據是根據「政府在任何時空條件底下都並非必然地與人們的個別生活世界產生實質上的關聯」7而被推論出來。

這就是「每一個人的生活內涵都在與無政府產生關聯」的論理依據,也是作為解釋為什麼有必要再次重新談論及反省無政府的基礎和前提。無政府需要再次被提出,作為對照權力的偽善和壓迫的明確座標。而只有從此一立場出發,我們才可能擁有尋找生命個體和生活意義的可能性條件8

(摘自: 無政府與全球化. 台北: 國立政治大學. 2003)

1 Peter Marshall在其著作Demanding the Impossible—A History of Anarchism中對西班牙無政府運動的意涵作如此評價:TO DATE, SPAIN IS the only country in the modern era where anarchism can credibly be said to have developed into a major social movement and to have seriously threatened the State. There are some good local reasons why this should be the case. The anarchist principles of autonomy, association and federation are peculiarly suited to the independent cast of the Spanish social temperament. There was also a long tradition of independent communes which stretched back to the Middle Ages; these communes had had their own public charters and made their own fueros or local laws. The free commune was considered a self-governing organism capable of federating with others.” See Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible—A History of Anarchism. Great Britain: Fontana. p. 453.

2 Noam Chomsky並不直接稱自己是「無政府主義者」:Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist …… For now, for the purposes of this discussion we can say that libertarian socialism for Chomsky means he believes that human beings can flourish best in, and should therefore have, conditions providing maximum freedom.” See Edgley, Alison (2000). The social and political thought of Noam Chomsky. New York: Routledge. p. 19. 他以「自由論的社會主義者」(libertarian socialist)來形容自己。所謂「自由論的社會主義者」,其主張和理念實與無政府主義互通:Libertarian socialism and anarchism are labels that are commonly used interchangeably. Anarchism argues for a society that can spontaneously organize itself without the coercive authority of the state. As libertarian socialists distinguish themselves from so-called authoritarian socialists by their attack on the maintenance of the state, it is possible to see why this interchangeability occurs.” Ibid., p. 47.

3 所謂俯視觀點,它的意涵在於強調一種「由上而下」的政治觀點陳述。過往,人類考察歷史行進的普遍方式,都是以俯視觀點(如朝代更替的脈絡、偉人英雄事跡等)作為理解人類整體歷史發展的主軸和重心。筆者認為此方式並非「錯誤」,但有必要被重新檢討和反省。

4 此處運用合法性一詞,旨在說明國家政府的組織構成必須合乎法律的明定和規範。

5 討論無政府必須假定一個前提:人自由的可能性。無政府主義肯定人擁有其自決能力。我們都是以自身的意志去決定屬於自己的生活型態和模式。筆者將在第三章對此論據作進一步討論。

6 William Godwin在其著作Enquiry Concerning Political Justice中對國家與人民的關係作下列說明:It is only in peculiar emergencies and matters that depart from the accustomed routine of affairs, that they conceive a private individual to have any occasion to remember, or to be in the least affected by the government of his country. If he commit or is supposed to commit any offence against the general welfare, if he find himself called upon to repress the offence of another, or if any danger from foreign hostility threaten the community in which he resides, in these cases and these only is he obliged to recollect that he has a country.” See: Godwin, William (1971). Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Oxford: Clarendon. p. 18.

7 反對此一論點者可能認為,當一個政府訂立法律或推行涉及民生、經濟方面的政策時,政府對我們生活內涵的介入是何等真實和巨大。不過,反對論者忽略了:人民有其自身意志,外在環境、物質條件的改變固然對生活方式有所影響,不過,生活的「質」並未因內在條件的影響而有所改變。所謂「質」,就是存有的核心,使一個人成為人的充要條件、使其判斷成為意志體現的可能性要素。每一事體經由我們的同意或不同意,打造了其意志的輪廓。在生活世界裡,「政府」究竟佔去我們生命歷程中多少空間,是一個值得再三思考的問題。

8 每一個人的生活內涵都在與無政府產生關聯,(至少在上述意義來說)是可被接受的。必須強調,這是人類生活的個體層面的觀察。但是,「無政府」從未被每每被否定為不可能外化為群體範疇的層次當中實現。本文將對全球化資本社會發展至末端,無政府究竟有沒有存在可能性、無政府對於我們的生活又有什麼重要意義等問題作進一步探討。