- 收入 '異議與同謀' 的存檔:

現世的外面

1968 年法國學運期間,激進學生與作家布朗修(M. Blanchot)及Dionys Mascolo 等人以「學生─作家行動委員會」名義出版實驗刊物《委員會》(Comité),其中一篇〈沒有承繼者的共產主義〉(*) 討論到「愛國主義」的問題;它提醒讀者,愛國主義、沙文主義及民族主義為號召的運動,本質無從區別,而愛國主義種種「唯我獨尊」的霸道表現,乃源於對民族主義意識形態的情感肯定。

這篇由布朗修執筆的文章認為,藉由價值觀與情感,要求人們根植於某一時代、某一歷史或某一語言的任何要求,本身就是異化,將人的個別特質(譬如說他是法國人,流著法蘭西血統云云)看作優越,使其滿足於個人生活的囚牢中,最終令人以這種異化為榜樣,甚至強制他人認同!

文章要批判的,不是政府或保守右派的愛國論調,而是當時一些「進步分子」,它重申馬克思的論述:只有當人們「願意離開自己」、離開使其閉守於「內在」的一切──離開宗教,離開家庭,離開國家,異化才有可能結束。只有此種呼喚「外面」的運動,足以反抗各種形式的愛國主義;而「外面」所指,既非另一個世界,亦非一隱藏的世界,卻是當下處身的現世「外面」。文章認為愛國主義是一極強大的整合力量,藉著情感思想、政治運動與日常生活實踐,讓不同的人群、工作與階級調和妥協,以避免階級鬥爭於國內出現,把國家特殊論升格為普遍存在,並以特殊性為名,實行統一,又製造「必須的分化」。當國際共產主義只能「策略性」協助國家群體,怯於「外國人政黨涉政」的指控,遂失去列寧所稱之「靈魂」。所有類似「革命家園」、「社會主義祖國」的說法,即使僅僅作為比喻,亦難免讓人萌起建立某處家園的渴望,令人們臣服於「父權、父權的法律及父權的祝福」。如此,黨(parti)變成與(父權的)祖國(patrie)同義。當社會主義者滿胸熱情的說「黨就是我們的家庭,為了這個家庭得犧牲一切,由社會主義開始」,卻容易陷落悲劇英雄主義,視死亡高於生活,因為「祖國」代表的正正就是死亡,正正就是由死人的價值永遠延續的虛假生命!對68 學運的激進學生與作家而言,抱持「國家」或「民族」價值觀的共產主義,極其量只是「舒適的共產主義」,因為「共產主義排拒任何既有體制的群體,亦拒絕成為任何既有體制的群體。在任何意義上,無產階級,就是除了貧窮拮据、不滿與匱乏,再沒有任何共通點的群體。」

*見:Maurice Blanchot. Political Writings, 1953-1993. Trans. Zakir Paul. New York: Fordham University Press, 2012. p.92-92
原刊《明報》世紀版「散景與叠影」,03/11/2014

Share

留言 04 Nov, 14

書抄 #17

今日我們都接受文學早已衰頹、文學市場也欲振乏力的說法,在上世紀末的出版大崩壞後,成為家樂福式文學賣場中的潛觀點:純文學已死,唯剩下暢銷小說的不斷重製。可是,純粹的文學生產不曾存在,以為文學可以與現實脫勾,本身就是一種自欺欺人;同樣道理,與其哀嘆文學園地的陸續消失,不如去逼視,它們如今怎麼存活。

文學雜誌的最大營收已不是來自訂戶,也不是廣告購買或工商服務,而是標案,例如那些官方委員會與縣市文化局底下的文學獎,有些我們可以更坦白的說,那些徵文比賽。而副刊,從無人意識那是二十一世紀文學勞動的持續剝削,相較於新聞版位的外電圖文必得採國際通則計費,而翻到最後一落,副刊文字的稿酬極其低廉。對於自由撰稿人或攝影師而言,這種微薄代表自由一職,幾乎不可能存在於這座島嶼。

數十年不變的稿酬,實際上倒退的薪資(且大部分編輯臺工作都可以外包),媒體惰於內容生產的再投資,而掌握數以億計營運成本的經營者,卻一如往昔告訴創作者:請共體時艱。文學內容本身亦無所謂純粹,歷史地看,那只是威權時代保存創作自主的修辭;甚至我們可以問,所謂的文學,為何不能是在這時代仍保留批判的批評時論上,或為何不能是在文學媒體以外,所有可能的當代書寫上。

扣除萎靡的文學出版與文學媒體,當代的文學與藝術,靠各種形式的出版補助與官方包案苟且存活,被矇騙了的藝文人士抗議大案的預算是否公義,而忽略,如今文學與藝術之於現實,比過往任何政權壓迫的時空都更要不堪,明目張膽的,文學書寫就是國家百年的宣傳工具,藝術創作就是資本積累的裝飾品。而我以為,文學環境最終不可能是一種官方政策的施為,藝術作品的眞切創造與代議政治的運作模式背道而馳,汲汲於爭論此間的政治責任,只會是文學本質裡,否定力量的消解。

我們可以在更大的文化生產脈絡中檢視這一切所為何來。全球化時代,文化被資本包裹進純粹工具性的經濟體系之中,用以全面改造人類的生活方式,用以宣傳新自由主義的美好情調,於是文化成了利潤龐大的傳播事業,於是藝術成了階級壟斷的符號資本,這一切才做成了現代性下人的意義的消亡,在地之上的流離,與我們情感的薄弱。

伊果頓(Terry Eagleton)寫到:「這些被私有化的象徵性生活,益發被要求給出更多的意義,超出它們的負荷。結局是我們即使在私領域中也更難發掘出意義。在文明焚燬時拉拉小提琴,或在歷史亂局時搞搞園藝,已經不再像以前那樣是個可行的選項了。」在這樣的時空中,體制下我們所有的文藝實踐,會不會只是成就體制的結構確立呢?學院、獎項、文化祭的興盛,終究與文學內在的生命無關。

黃湯姆〈文學的政治〉《文學理論倒讀》,台北:二魚文化,2013。頁 138-140

Share

留言 02 Nov, 14

沒有魔警,是人性

15 日凌晨警方於金鐘清場驅趕「佔中」示威者期間,有主流電視台全程錄下七名警察輪流毆打一名已被制服、膠索帶反縛雙手的示威者,輿論嘩然,更有網民稱之為「魔警」再現。

然而警察毆打平民是一種職業常態。過往經投訴警察課接獲的各種投訴中,「毆打」一直是「執勤疏忽」和「態度不佳」以外最多市民投訴的類別。2011-12 和2012-13年度的數字分別是417 和323 宗,惟過去五年超過兩千多宗「毆打」投訴案中,僅有兩名警員遭正式檢控,入罪率為:零。對警察濫權的指控,每每因為警警相衛的調查機制,因「證據不足」不了了之,而保安當局以「保障當事人私隱」為理由,一直未有計劃在警車和警署拘留室安裝閉路電視,全港兩千多輛警車與四十七間警署,隨時成為死無對証的私刑空間。

投訴警察課自2012 年起引入「表達不滿」的新機制,以「改善服務」為原則處理「輕微投訴」,讓正式投訴的數字有所減少,但正式數字卻無法反映,因各種原因(諸如怕被報復、不黯程序、留港時間不足等)而未有投訴或不能跟進投訴者的大量個案。平常警察毆打或人身侵害他人的個案沒有惹起關注,很可能因為受害人多是少數族裔、邊緣青年、涉嫌刑事犯、露宿者、性工作者等與「公民」無辦法沾邊的弱勢者,與今次事件中因和平示威而被打的政黨人士身分有雲泥之別。以性工作者為例,關注團體紫藤於2011 年就曾接獲超過250 名按摩技師及外勞性工作者的投訴,涉及各種令人髮指的警察濫權惡行,包括被警察誤導、誣告、插贓嫁禍及屈打成招,更有前線警員乘著查牌、放蛇之便,要求免費性服務,非禮以至性侵犯她們。

然而「樹大有枯枝」的論調,不能解釋警察暴行的制度因素,由香港納稅人供養的警員編制,承襲港英系統,人口比例屬全球前列,每十萬人口有約450 名警察,比日本與新加坡多出兩倍有多,試想,只要三萬三千多名警員當中有百分之一二「枯枝」,對社會的影響就非常堪慮!警察是一個內聚力(與排斥性)極高的同僚利益集團,與多種基層行業相比,有不合符學歷的收入,及各種比一般公務員較優的薪津福利與借貸優惠,因其執法者地位也有可能收受利益或因職務接觸的人脈網絡中得享種種非物質性的「方便」與特殊待遇,為了「搵食」自不會貿然放棄,更枉論會在執勤的時候突然良心發現掉轉槍頭。中低層職級的警員之間亦存在博取表現競逐升遷的風氣,在受訓期間經歷種種非人化、機器化操練,在日常工作中得對上級絕對服從,長期處於因階級自卑而自大的雄性沙文主義文化,視任何對警權的制約為對其自身作為一名警員的個人挑戰;然而警員的「工作表現」並無客觀準則可言,執法期間各種僭越或違規行為,但凡同僚與上司不反對或不加制止即屬許可,外界根本無可置喙。由是,警察濫權幾乎是制度許可,亦是其主體性(幻覺)的重要構成──按序規程的專業公僕與執法的武力本質,兩種要求無可調和,儼然精神分裂。要是鷹派上場,警察內部對行使權力的制度規範將更趨寬鬆,甚至可能會有以高壓手段「立功」作為評估升遷準則,徇私瀆職的情況只會更普遍。

從殖民地時期到今日,警察的作用都是為了以華制華,以收買的基層來打壓基層生活空間進行社會控制為大前提。任何國家體制的社會秩序都是由武力維持的,在所謂民主自由的西方國家或是東亞地區被視為民主化程度相當高的台灣、南韓等地,國家機器暴力維穩性質一如既往。如果中共治下的香港警察行為特別可恥,讓人怒不可言,不是因為它是甚麼「邪惡極權」指使,而是在「回歸」十七年後,特區政府的最高決策者為了儘快恢復金融資本主義剝削制度下的社會秩序,奉行英殖民者打壓異議的公安惡法,再一次捨棄對話與政治斡旋,挑撥「支持執法」和「抗命者」的民間對立,把人民內部矛盾激化作敵我矛盾處理,自己說不過自己。


另刊《評台》15/10/2014

資料來源
每10萬人有450警 港警力列全球五強〉蘋果日報,2013年10月18日

警設渠道供市民「表達不滿」〉星島日報,2012年4月9日

立法會六題:警務人員涉及毆打的投訴〉政府新聞公佈,2014年7月9日

反對警方「故態復萌」、「屈得就屈」、「變本加厲」〉紫藤新聞稿,2011 年12月17日

Share

留言 16 Oct, 14

實時的幻覺

當我們說「實時」,它的前提可是眞實的懸擱,一切靜默、岐義與異議消失。因為在資訊發達的地區,世間萬象必須通過電子媒體的中介,記錄、剪緝,編碼,變成條目式「資訊」,方可在屏幕上看見,方可在屏幕上觸及,如斯即近。

要強調時間的「眞實」,曰 Real Time,當然不是指有一個相對的「假」時間,Fake Time 或False Time存在;「實時」對應的是緩慢、滯後的訊息。有圖有聲畫的臨場「實況」才叫真相,Breaking News 才是當前最重要的關注。如是,更新的速度被置換作判辨眞實的準則,速度即意義,速度即眞實。眞實僅止於臨場的經驗。

強調「實時」的科技意識形態,就是把一切沉思,需要長期觀察、長期浸淫所得的言說與累積,一切因距離方可看清的洞見與思慮,一切無以資訊化的感情與生存經驗,統統排除或取消。因為在包圍著我們的高清屏幕中,我們已經看見了實時的世界,並且身處其中,即時評論,即時行動,即時與遠方或近鄰同仇敵氣,同哭同哀!同時間,我們也在實時的串流與廣播中,馬上看見了自己的表演,告白、行動、情緒的記印,均由他人實時確認,讚好與轉發:我們的確如此存活於世上,一如我們在屏幕中看見主體的幻覺,由無限複製無限折射的「當下」完成。

當下,「世界」以林總不同的資訊條目方式存在,便於複製,切割,整合與刪除,同時讓權勢者更容易操縱、壟斷一般人的行為與觀念。當臉書可以用眞實用戶來試驗操縱集體情緒的程式,類似技術的戰略意義不言而喻。長久以來,持續發布無可印證、誤導或相互矛盾的「假情報」(Disinformation),是敵對國家與陣形打心戰、宣傳戰的常用策略。「社交」平台的自願性軟式廣播、分眾內聚的特質,豈可能不被利用?如今所謂「鬥爭年代」來臨,過份依賴社交媒體作為吸收資訊來源,對嘩眾取寵、情緒煽動的內容,慎戒越益鬆懈,等於每天在無償參戰,民粹鬥民粹,成為不知何方派系鬥爭的網軍而不自知。

原刊《明報》世紀版「散景與叠影」,31/08/2014

Share

留言 01 Sep, 14

書抄 #15

Toward evening I decided to write to Bouxx. This temptation to write was dangerous, and no one knew that better than me. But the hours were so long, so dead, that I couldn’t be satisfied just jotting an account: that could all be summed up in a single sentence, which was always the same and never sufficed.

“I know that you’re very busy. Nevertheless, please read these lines. I’ve led a calm and regular life in the service of the State, troubled occasionally by my poor health. Now, I witness with horror your efforts to change the course of events. It’s not that I blame you; I feel sympathy for you, and your madness soothes me. Alas, it puts you to work for everything you condemn.

“I’d like to be useful to you and demonstrate the very greatest loyalty. But you’re blind, you’re fighting into the abyss. How can I open your eyes? You’re fighting in the ranks of your enemies and I myself deceive you when I persuade you of my candor. If I tell you the truth, you will give up the struggle. If I allow you to be hopeful, you will be wrong about the struggle. Please understand: everything that you get from me is, for you, only a lie – because I’m the truth.

“I’d like to convince you of this: you’re on the wrong track when you attack the offices, the administration, all the visible apparatus of the State. They don’t count. If you do away with them, you do away with nothing. If you replace them with others, you replace them with the same. And, beyond that, their only goal is the public good: in order to act well they’ll always be in agreement with you. I assure you: there’s nothing mysterious in the offices; there are none of those little secrets that were the petty privilege of the old administrations which trouble the supplicant and make him think that behind the façade there’s something essential going on to which he’ll never have access. Anyone can always take everything into account. Administration, classification, decision making, all goes on in broad daylight, and perfect equality means that at every moment the whole State inhabits the bodies and minds of those who turn to it. The State is everywhere. Everyone feels it, sees it, everyone feels it live through him. In the offices it’s represented rather than present. It’s found there with its official features, and appearances are certainly not in short supply: historical buildings, institutions, civil servants, tables, filing cabinets, the smallest things takes on a particular dignity. Indeed it’s there that those looking for the center can flatter themselves upon having found it. But that is only the center. Having reached it, it’s grasped in no more than an indirect way, through unimportant markers like mottoes above doors, the uniform of the ushers, etc.; it evaporates for whoever’s not outside it. For those at home there, the offices vanish; they really exist only in the eyes of those attackers. Thus the empty feeling one gets there, which is not due exclusively to the somewhat sad and solemn appearance of the rooms, over which glides the hesitant gleam of the past. In every rooms, there’s a constant coming and going of the most serious working people, an extraordinary buzzing of activity, everyone’s busy, and yet the visitor is struck by something sad and useless, as if everyone were yawning in idleness and boredom.

“I’d like you to reflect on these false appearances. Everything the administration does to give the laws a tangible reality – decrees, rules, measures of all kinds – sometimes seems to be misleading manifestations of the power in which everyone participates. It’s as if thinking unjustifiably deforms spontaneous feelings. It’s well known that the law acquire their true value in this way; they are laws only thanks to this. But a disagreeable feelings of hidden activity, of intervention after the fact, remains. When the government , in order to give official approval to the definitive right, recognized by everyone, to know everything, delegates agents who keep individuals informed, or when it puts posters on walls and prints its principle decisions in newspapers, then, in the eyes of every citizen possessing tacit knowledge, fairly petty revelations – on the scale of the means available – seem rather to conceal measures of intimidation. And the law, far from being the meeting place where everyone feels called to the common spirit, is no more than the personal and foreign warning addressed to us by a civil servant who has resolved for some reason to treat us as enemies.

“This apparent deviation cannot be taken seriously. The prestige of the State, the love we have for it and above all our absolute adherence to it, maintained through reservations and rebellions, links every mind and doesn’t allow the mind to see the tiniest crack in the immense edifice from which it is inseparable. No one can distinguish the regime from its manifestations, for the law is not haphazardly revealed, and its truth lies only in the collective movement which has inscribed it deep within our souls, and which causes it to emerge in the sovereign system that represents it. In practice one can always criticize, and this often happens. Civil servants are people just like anyone else; they’re not at all superior to those they administer. If they were to claim special rights for themselves then we would no longer be in our native land, and we would have to keep struggling, as it was necessary to do for centuries, against a distant and dominating power. And it isn’t like men who are richer in humanity than the common run of mortals to carry out duties from which they derive no advantage. They are supposed to have a more active awareness of what they are; they live less and reflect more. I know very well that that’s what indicates our administrative deformation; our most inward thoughts have something about them that’s ordered, objective, as if they always had to be the subject of a report or pass unrevised into an account. Hence, no doubt, this meditative and cunning appearance which distinguishes certain important men in public and also the brutal and base manners often affected by agents of enforcement as if, among the latter, reflection, instead of manifesting itself through waiting, equivocation, and delays, demanded the haste and blind rigidity of authority. The law is sly; that is the impression it gives. It circumvents, even when it strikes. It interferes everywhere, under the pretext of never withholding itself. Never able to condemn anyone, it always seems to be concealing something under the benevolence and deceit of its plans. It is clarity itself, and it is impenetrable. It is absolute truth which expresses itself straightforwardly, and it invokes the most perfidious falsehood, one which leaves no traces, outside of , and within, our hearts. But don’t believe that it is always hatching plots. With all my strength I want to warn you against such an idea, one as naïve as it is depraved. We are the ones who sometimes feign to believe the law capable of dark plotting, in order to alleviate the feeling of vigilance with which its loyalty encircles us. We would like to free ourselves from this feeling and be able to rest. We imagine that there is a plot, because we cannot tolerate the idea of infinitely more complex relations, founded on good faith and clarity, relations which, far from being foreign to us, express that which is closest to us and most inward.

“Now, please listen. What I am going to tell you is serious. It is not only that I’m a danger to you through my mode of being, my turn of mind, and my habits. I also have to work: I play a role, I receive orders, I carry them out. How? I can’t say, because finally that isn’t true. They’re ideas that take hold of me, then leave me, restful phrases meant to keep me at a good distance from a situation at which I lack the courage to gaze straight on, a situation I lack the strength to undergo indefinitely. Still, they’re not fables – far from it. In the times that preceded our own, such a view of things would have been the truth itself; today, it still has all the precision of a metaphor. Civil servants, to the extent that they live in offices, sign decrees, work for the maintenance of the State, make decisions that seem to us brutal or unjust – are they themselves anything more than images that no one accepts as such, but which, as long bypassed relics, nevertheless give us an idea of the mores, the political fate, and the life of the world in general?

“Think about what’s so terrible. It’s that I myself, in a number of ways, am only a face. A face? Can you fathom what a dangerous , perfidious, hopeless, ways of life such a word implies? I am a mask. I act like a mask and as such I play a dishonest role in this universal fabrication which spreads, over a humanity too full of the law – like a light varnish, in order to soften the glare – a more crude and naïve humanity, one that recalls the earlier stages in an evolution which, once it has arrived its end, tries in vain to go back.”

Maurice Blanchot. The Most High. Trans. Allan Stoekl. Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. p. 175-179.

Share

留言 11 Jul, 14

讓所有人住進監獄

台北捷運砍人事件發生以後,沿線都有加派警員,部份繁忙車站更時有見到持衝鋒槍的特警巡邏。每見到穿了避彈衣的荷槍警員在車廂裡走過,更形緊張,因為有了武裝巡警,遇有突發事件就有「使用武器」的可能。而武力只會觸發更高等級的武力。

警力提升同時提升了乘客面對的風險,所謂「安心」其實是把責任更高度集中於一兩名巡警身上。台北捷運每天載客量約180 萬人次,一個毫無特徵亦不會事先預告犯案的持刀者,可以在短短一兩秒間從五、六公尺外快步衝向警員刺傷,而警員處於被動,要及時拔槍,瞄準行動中的襲擊者,以癱瘓其行動力為射擊目標;我不知道大眾憑甚麼相信警員可以在擠迫的捷運空間裡確保:1)開槍不會傷及無辜;2) 槍枝不會在混亂中被搶去。

在時分不能有誤的上下班上下課途上,能在快速前進的冷氣車廂中與大夥陌生人靠在一起打蓋睡、癡呆地玩手機的安靜和平,突然顯出它極其脆弱的本質。

此種恐懼,與不甘,大概就是事發後一輪造魔運動的燃料,為了保護文明社會有情的自我形象,及其支撐的價值秩序不被動搖,媒體邀請心理專家、精神科醫生與各種「知情者」按圖索驥,連續多天公審一名有「反社會人格障礙」的「狂魔」及其失能家庭。臉書上出現多個類似「鄭捷處死刑」群組,仇恨言論不絕,讚好人數幾千到十餘萬不等。

警政署除了嚷著預算不足,更計劃建立「高危險群資料庫,把行為偏差的學生,和精神病患、反社會危險群等一同列管,作為防範參考」,一直被主流社會排斥的他者,再一次被污名化,成為無能政府徉裝有做事的政治犧牲品,亦讓人懷疑當局藉社會悲劇擴大社會監控!部分警局為了「防範未然」,更荒謬到要求警員熟讀《金田一少年》等有殺人情節的漫畫著作。網上模仿鄭捷發表「犯案預言」者,至五月底共拘捕 21 人,另一在臉書上建立「鄭捷粉絲團」的大學生,日前則涉嫌刑法「恐嚇公眾罪」被捕。

當不停玩計數機的自閉症少年都可被搭客懷疑施襲,沒有人知道警察的權力要擴展到多大,社會才安全到沒有「下一個鄭捷」。

原刊《明報》世紀版「散景與叠影」,21/06/2014。

Share

留言 23 Jun, 14

走得去邊?

人們說「出走」的時候,不知心裡有沒有底蘊,是要到一處嚮往之地追尋理想生活?還是要遁匿於市,最終成為一個連自己都認不出的陌生人?但那個「理想生活」,怎可能憑一己之力由零建成?那個陌生的自己,會不會比把心一橫的今我更冷更麻木?抑或有一未可知的途徑,會讓人在細慢的生活中,放棄身份與我執,不成功業卻成仁義?

無論怎樣,「出走」需要付出代價,決絕離開,「出」「走」二字,直指向外面:家屋之外,家國之外,此處不可留,就算前路不可知,路還在當下,因為身後的路橋早就沒了。代價就是不能付出的代價,不是上午升市可以等下午跌市趁低汲納,就算多麼不情願、多麼沒把握也得離開。時世不由人,一個人無法在一處生活下去,抑或再沒法屈就於同一屋簷下,他必須離去,以另一種方式生存下去。

有人口口聲聲要離家出走,心裡卻盤算著兩個月、三兩年後回來繼續上班上課,與所有人事的關係都原封不動,像爛電影裡的負心情郎般幾乎沒說出口,「你最好幫我停薪留職,房子看著,感情保鮮,等我回來」,每天還要Facebook 或 Line 與人連絡,抱怨水土食物交通以至電視節目的無聊程度大不如前,手持股票債券還得睇實個市,同時念念不忘「本土認同」,總是以己度人,你看你看,人家這樣倒垃圾這樣上廁所──比起我們──多好多不好。這不是笑話嗎?的確,世上實在沒一個地方像香港一樣,可以讓香港人像香港人那麼刻薄討厭而不被討厭,可以讓人像香港人那樣自甘平凡與惡俗,為種種功利與缺德行為辯護說辭,毫不臉紅還振振有辭,忽然自詡經濟動物,又忽然像個長久被管束的模範學生自詡良好市民,為當權者糾察。

那麼,人們說「出走」的時候,很可能只是想渡假,或是逃逸。沒有意圖要改變現實處境中任何事情。更甚,他們更愛自己的恨。

開口閉口要離開香港,卻又認同此處作「我城」,又一天到晚說「香港淪陷」的人們,到底活在哪個海拔高度,可以命定此處生活的普羅民眾,罪該與他們的香港傳奇陪葬!?無數人在八十年代「經濟起飛」奠定的叢林法則下,天天胼手胝足地吃力討生活,為甚麼有些人踩著別人跑前幾步就可以說「熟悉的那個香港消失了」,好像那個「香港」真是所有人的香港,而這個城市該有甚麼自我想像、要不要棄城,就真由他們說了算?他們憑甚麼可以脅迫那些在社會上無法言語的人們,做將臨一場政治代理權Show Hand 賭局的籌碼?

抑或,該這麼問,所謂「我城隕落」的悲情與憂戚,何以未轉化成一股改變現實的持久力量,切實面對香港的結構性經濟剝削、人口/勞動力/教育政策諸種問題所造成的社會不公,讓香港變成一個更開放、平等,人們活得有尊嚴的地方?卻偏偏要把一切問題諉過予一邪惡他者,自命無辜之餘還向更弱者抽刀?對現實的不滿情緒,因為怎樣的非政治化教育與代言人政治,竟被導向一種無視冷戰與殖民歷史的懷舊,「凡是過往都是美好的」?對不公現狀的無力感,何以竟被導向一種每人只著眼既得利益有沒有被人攤分的保守排他主義,極其反智、不問情由只問身份與口音的大香港主義!人們口中的「香港」,是否需要打個引號?

受不了香港的N 個理由,原來都不是理由,他們愛的是恨,無一足以讓香港人甘願放棄,生活於此處營建的一切,哪怕它不過是一座舒適的監獄。

原刊《號外》448期,01/2014

Share

2 則留言 10 Jan, 14

愛荷華片段

「言論自由」是作家理應關注的事,然而「國際寫作計劃」(IWP)的訪問作家在愛荷華市公共圖書館的「Intellectual Freedom Festival」一個名為「這是否審查?」研討會裡,卻好像自覺不自覺的落入了另一場戲。

那不過是個規模甚小的活動,訪問作家和IWP 人員佔了多數座位,惟討論會作社區電視轉播,觀眾數目不明。毛派行動者/詩人M. 在會前說,他要杯葛這活動,「因為發言者名單很有問題,連著作被查禁的伊朗作家也沒有獲邀」,我說,你要杯葛的話要寫個聲明讓人知道你在杯葛和為甚麼杯葛啊,他說,「我會把這個事情好好寫下來」,我說,你連人家在裡面說了些甚麼,怎麼操作這種會議都沒看到,可以寫甚麼!?於是他去了會場,拿了紀念品,坐在遠遠一角,沒聽完所有人發言就走了。

那一年,軍事介入巴拿馬

讓我更不安的是,人人家裡難唸的經,不小心變成美國言論開放之頌詞。生活在貧民窟的舞者/小說家L.,對美國於1989 年軍事介入巴拿馬「恢復民主制度」輕輕帶過,並肯定了其後的「相對和平、經濟發展與自由」,發言不知是否內化了某種聽眾期望,把對馬締內利(R. Martinelli)政府的貪腐與強硬打壓異見者的批評,導引往一種幾乎抽空脈絡的公民抗命口號,沒法說明公共知識分子的言論空間,與媒體、建制利益集團的複雜關係。

然後,也許僅是因為會前多喝了兩杯威士紀,緬甸詩人/譯者Z. 好像終於找到知心朋友一樣,對著咪高峰一五一十訴苦說,「當我翻譯國際文學,總感到緬甸文學不論在涉獵範疇、主題、方法和技巧都有所不足」、「任何人擁有電視、衛星電視天線、錄影機都得先獲當局批准‧‧‧‧‧‧網吧要每隔五分鐘把用戶的屏幕快照存檔,以備政府通訊與監控部門翻查」。彷彿在國外說自己國家壞話的客人準是比較受歡迎,沒有人要提起美國國家安全局的網絡偵訊與監控對思想傳播的重大威脅,沒有人會提到英語出版、媒體「言論市場」排除異議、收編各地「啟蒙的受壓迫者」的體制操作,甚至連最根本的「國家安全」概念亦沒有人想要討論,並且在「人權」與「普世價值」的話語中,喪失了更細致表述國情與知識分子處境的語言。「這是否審查?」一題,如斯反諷。

〈愛荷華雜記〉之三,原刊《明報》世紀版,2013年12月10日。題目及標題為編輯所加。

Share

留言 22 Dec, 13

網摘 10-11/2013

Emily Dickinson Archive.

Antipsychotics and Brain Shrinkage. Joanna Moncrieff

The “Mental Illness” Paradigm: Itself an “Illness” that is Out of Control. Paris Williams

The Ocean is Broken. Grey Ray

香港文藝剪貼簿. (陳進權 整理)

五十年代的美元文化與香港小說. 趙稀方. (pdf)

横光利一的《上海》之行. 童曉薇

英國政府於1976年時對香港前途的評估. kaichileung

Marriage Will Never Set Us Free.  Dean Spade & Craig Willse.

【想像不家庭】專題 苦勞評論

水龍頭的普世象徵:國民黨是如何失去「現代」光環的? 鄭鴻生

Treating cancer with electric fields. Bill Doyle (video)

The Case against the World Novel. Pankaj Mishra

The Shared Mirror

Camus & Algeria: The Moral Question. Claire Messud

Walter Benjamin: Culture and Revolution. Andrew Robinson

Alain Robbe-Grillet, The Art of Fiction No. 91. Interviewed by Shusha Guppy

The Art of Not Being Governed. Book review by Jeff Riggenbach

Ego depleted. Rob Horning

公民社會與虛擬自由主義的解體:兼論公民共和的後殖主體性. 羅永生

Jorge Luis Borges’ 1967-8 Norton Lectures On Poetry (And Everything Else Literary)(Mp3 Audio)

Jan Mieszkowski on Believe and Destroy : Intellectuals in the SS War Machine

香港早期的無政府主義活動. 香港工人的故事

Share

留言 01 Dec, 13

貪新/ Newer posts 念舊/ Older posts


August 2017
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

~ 月缺

~ 杳踏